Preamble

The House met at Eleven of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

Durham County Water Board Bill,

Metropolitan Railway Bill,

Sheffield Gas Company Bill,

Worthing Corporation Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

Morton's Divorce Bill [Lords],

To be read a Second time upon Monday next.

Port of London and Midland Railway Bill (by Order) (King's Consent signified),

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Land Drainage Provisional Order (No. 1) Bill,

Read the Third time, and passed.

Pilotage Provisional Orders (No. 2) Bill,

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time upon Monday next.

BILLS PRESENTED.

FISHERY BOARD (TENURE OF OFFICE OF CHAIRMAN) (SCOTLAND) BILL,

"to make further provision with respect to the tenure of office of the Chairman of the Fishery Board for Scotland," presented by Mr. MUNRO; supported by Mr. C. D. Murray; to be read a Second time upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 86.]

EMPIRE SETTLEMENT BILL,

"to make better provision for furthering British Settlement in His Majesty's Oversea Dominions," presented by Mr. AMERY; supported by Mr. Churchill, Sir Alfred Mond, and Dr. Macnamara; to be read a Second time upon Wednesday 26th April, and to be printed. [Bill 87.]

LAMBETH BOROUGH COUNCIL (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.

The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, in pursuance of Standing Order 83 relating
to Private Bills, informed the House that, in his opinion, the Lambeth Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill, though unopposed, ought to be treated as an opposed Bill.

SHOREDITCH AND OTHER METROPOLITAN BOROUGH COUNCILS (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.

The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, in pursuance of Standing Order 83 relating to Private Bills, informed the House that, in his opinion, the Shoreditch and other Metropolitan Borough Councils (Superannuation) Bill, though unopposed, ought to be treated as an opposed Bill.

ST. MARYLEBONE BOROUGH COUNCIL (SUPERANNUATION) BILL.

The CHAIRMAN OF WAYS AND MEANS, in pursuance of Standing Order 83 relating to Private Bills, informed the House that, in his opinion, the St. Marylebone Borough Council (Superannuation) Bill, though unopposed, ought to be treated as an opposed Bill.

MESSAGE FROM THE LORDS.

Consolidation Bills,—

That they have appointed a Committee consisting of Six Lords, to join with a Committee of the Commons, to consider all Consolidation Bills in the present Session, and request the Commons to appoint an equal number of their Members to be joined with the said Lords.

That they have agreed to,—

Highland Railway Order Confirmation Bill, without Amendment.

Orders of the Day — LOCAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHER OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION BILL.

Order for Second Heading read.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I gladly appropriate the fortune which attended me in the Ballot in order to bring in this somewhat prosaic but at the same time useful Measure. The time has long passed since there ought to have been facilities at any rate for a universal acceptation of the principle of the superannuation of local government officers. The principles of superannuation generally have been recognised for a very long time, and, although it is argued, and I think with truth, that the original superannuation of the Civil Service was upon special lines and had reference to a system whereby the prospects of old age were taken into consideration in fixing the emoluments for their services, there was no other attempt for a long time to apply this very beneficent provision to other public servants. The, Civil Service got their superannuation originally in 1859. They contribute nothing, although, since their superannuation was, as I have just said, considered to be part of their present emolument, and in the nature of deferred pay, there is, indeed, a contribution, of indefinable amount, towards their pension. In 1896, there came the Poor Law officials, and they are on a contributory basis, paying variable rates of 2, 2½ and 3 per cent., the rest being paid by the Poor Law guardians. In 1890—six years before the Poor Law officers—the police were granted superannuation, on the basis of a contribution of 2½ per cent., with contributions from the employers varying with the grade of the pensioned servant. Then, in 1898, the teachers had their first scheme. Originally it was contributory, but in 1918 a non-contributory scheme was introduced by the Government. That is in force to-day, and, as we all know, the proposals which are being made to alter it to a 5 per cent, contributory basis are arousing very con-
siderable hostility on the part of the teachers. That is no doubt a matter which will be debated at length when the proposed Bill is brought in. In 1909 the asylum officers obtained their superannuation on the same basis as the Poor Law officers, contributing 2, 2½ and 3 per cent, according to circumstances, the authority making up the difference.
If there be a stronger case for the necessity of this Bill than is shown by the numerous private Bills which are promoted from time to time, I fail to find it. The private Bill procedure of this House is very often brought into play at enormous expense—one cannot emphasise too much the expense attending the promotion of Parliamentary Bills—I will not say altogether for the purpose of producing superannuation schemes and getting them authorised by special legislation, but it is certainly the fact that it has very largely operated upon the minds of these men who, no doubt, are desirous of obtaining proper recognition by means of superannuation—I mean the officers of various corporations and public authorities who are not yet covered— and would assist very materially in getting other matters joined together in a General Powers Bill, the prime object of which would be superannuation. The present Bill would obviate all that expense—I will not say waste of money, because I belong to a calling that profits by it; I will not say more than that it would avoid unnecessary expense. That is illustrated by the way in which Metropolitan schemes have been produced by private Bill legislation and passed during the last twenty years.
I find that the number of schemes is very considerable. In 1893, Croydon led the way, and, as regards Metropolitan boroughs, Stepney, in 1905, obtained an Act which set up their scheme. In 1906, the Bethnal Green Borough Council obtained an Act of Parliament upon the same basis, namely, 2, 2½ and 3 per cent, of the salary and emoluments, an annual contribution of £100 being made by the employers. Later on, in 1907, the Kensington Borough Council, the Metropolitan Water Board and the London County Council all promoted schemes for the purposes of superannuation, and got their Acts through. In 1908, a joint Act was obtained by Camberwell, Deptford and
Hackney in combination, and an Act was also obtained by Marylebone very much on the same basis as those to which I have already referred. I should say that the Metropolitan Water Board is somewhat of an exception, taking from the employés 4¾, 5⅛, 5⅝ and 6⅜ per cent. In 1909, the Westminster City Council obtained their Act, which was amended last year. Wandsworth also obtained an Act in that year, and in 1911, Acts were obtained by Paddington, Poplar and Chiswick, which last-named was part then of the district which I represented in the House. In 1912, the City Corporation obtained their Act; in 1913, South-gate; and in 1914, Chelsea. Then came the interval of the War. I should mention the Port of London Authority obtained their Act in 1908. Then came the War, and the only Metropolitan or extra-Metropolitan scheme which has been framed and pased since then is the one for my own County of Middlesex. That scheme, although certainly it has only had twelve months' working, is now acknowledged by the most eminent actuaries of the day to be the embodiment of a sound financial scheme. I mention that because this Bill is framed on the Middlesex Act to fit the circumstances of a general Bill. Its provisions are such as to justify all that has been said about that Act.
I want to convince the House that this widespread system, so far as it has been already introduced by the expensive method of special legislation, will justify the claim to pass this Measure. In 1893 Croydon got its Bill, in 1899 Bootle, in 1901 Wallasey, in 1903 Birmingham, in 1905 Newcastle, in 1906 Edinburgh, in 1908 the Clyde Navigation. Newcastle amended its scheme in 1911 and St. Helens acquired powers, Birmingham amended its scheme in 1912, Liverpool had its scheme authorised in 1913, in 1915 Manchester and Cardiff obtained their scheme, and in 1921 Rotherham. Rother-ham and Cardiff both impose a 5 per cent, contribution on the employés. That is the basis of the proposal which I now make. There are at present no fewer than 10 Metropolitan boroughs, some in combination and some alone, proposing Private Bill legislation this Session, and if this Bill could be passed sufficiently rapidly to come into operation at a reasonably early date, this Private Bill
legislation will not be necessary. The Lambeth Bill proposes levies varying from 3¾ to 6 per cent, on employés up to 42 years old. Ramsgate Corporation propose a levy of 5 per cent., and Bolton Corporation 5 per cent. Then there is this combination of local authorities in Metropolitan areas, including Shoreditch, Ber-mondsey, Finsbury, Greenwich, South-wark and Stoke Newington, and it would be for this Bill at this moment to try to prevent this constant application for special legislation by general legislation. When I had the good fortune to obtain an opportunity for introducing this Bill it was suggested by some that the Bill might be on the lines of the recommendations of the Departmental Committee. One of these recommendations is that this Bill should be universal and compulsory. I differ entirely from that. Having regard to the financial position of the country, it is impossible to expect to get a Bill through at this moment which makes it compulsory on all local authorities to adopt a scheme, and this Bill is purely optional.
As to the numbers who are already under superannuation schemes, the figures which I give are only approximate, because it is impossible with absolute accuracy to ascertain numbers which fluctuate. I have before me figures which state that civil servants at present number 200,000. These are people who are secured and always have been secured since 1859. The Poor Law officers are a much more doubtful number. Approximately in January, 1921, they numbered 57,900. Some of these were under the Asylums Board. So a reasonable estimate would be 50,000 people who are insured by reason of the Act of 1896. For the police the estimate is that the number of police under superannuation at present is 59,856. To these must be added a number of prison officials under special schemes 2,140. Then there is superannuation for a number of the community who are secured pensioners. The teachers, it is estimated, number at present approximately 180,000 who will benefit under the Superannuation Act: Then there are asylums officers given separately, 24,000. So in connection with those general services there are 516,376 persons approximately who are benefitting already by general schemes not of application merely to a particular area, but which are
general to the particular calling of the persons engaged. Coming to the system of local government, it is stated that there are at present no fewer than 60,000 officers, as well as 200,000 workmen employés of local government institutions who are already covered by their local schemes. There are also others covered by existing local Acts. Therefore the grand total of those classes whom I have enumerated amounts to upwards of 570,000.
The total number of public servants who will be eligible to come under this Bill is 38,500 officers and 167,000 working men, so that the figures of those left outside are altogether disproportionate to the figures of those who are covered, and it is anomalous that these men should remain without the option of getting, in their old age, the pension which is possessed by the overwhelming number of those who are engaged in similar occupations, it being merely a question of accident as to whether the body for which the person works brings in a Bill for the special purpose, and incurs great expenditure. So far as the proposal to give districts the option to adopt the scheme under this Bill is concerned, I do not think that it is unreasonable to give a chance of obtaining superannuation to any man in the service of a local authority who is getting into years when the period of superannuation, if it existed, would have arrived. Local authorities are always loth to act in a manner which might be regarded as harshly or unjustly towards their old servants by compelling them to retire, dismissing them, throwing them out into the world to face the difficulties of the situation, because many of us know of the inability, especially in times like the present or even without regard to the War, of a man occupying the average position of a Local Government Board officer to save any money out of his salary if he has to bring up a fairly numerous family. It is impossible. Therefore the most the man can do in those circumstances is to provide a reasonably comfortable home and to provide a suitable education for his children so that they may get a start in life.
Such a man cannot save for a rainy day a sum sufficient to give him the equivalent superannuation. It is true he may enter friendly societies or he may take out a policy on his life, but
that will not provide for him. Such a policy is a burden if he is dismissed from his employment by reason of advancing years rather than inefficiency. Under these conditions, is it not a more wholesome policy and better for the public that he should be able to look forward to a competence in the nature of a superannuation allowance, and make way for some younger man at a reduced salary, because, presumably, the older man would have advanced along the line and would have got the maximum pay that the office was worth? The difference in the salaries would thus be saved by the local authority, and could be, set off against the five per cent, which the local authority would be called upon to contribute under this Bill. I am told that the anomalies are such that at present of two men working side by tide in the same office one may be secured superannuation and the other not. There is a further illustration. While every teacher is able to look forward to superannuation without contributions, the clerks of an education department, attendance officers and others engaged on the purely administrative staff of an education authority, have no superannuation. How can one justify that? It is utterly impossible.
Under this Bill it is possible for an authority to cover every conceivable public service. That would put an end to an anomaly which works very great hardships. Some authorities have superannuation and others have not. That means competition. It means that the authority which has not adopted a superannuation scheme is in risk of losing its officers, unless it puts up salaries to such a figure as will counterbalance the salary of a similar position in an adjoining council where there is a superannuation scheme. It is a painful thing, spoken of again and again in this House, that there is this competition when an officer has proved himself exceptionally able. Authorities are constantly advancing salaries when they issue public advertisements of a vacancy in order to attract such officers, and salaries are sometimes swollen beyond the point which a position demands. General superannuation will give authorities the opportunity of adopting the provisions of this Bill and will do away very largely with many anomalies. An authority may want an officer who
is already serving another authority and has a number of years' service under a pension scheme. If that officer accepts the new position he must sacrifice his years of contribution under the old authority. Every facility ought to be given to a man to carry forward his past contributions. Then there is a suggestion for grouping areas, so that they may be able to maintain a financially sound scheme.
Commercial houses, banks, railways, insurance companies and large employers of every description have found it to their advantage to establish superannuation schemes among their own staffs. The whole tendency of modern times has been to encourage this system of making provision by superannuation for old age. The passing of this Bill would very materially help the public service. I have here a statement made by Mr. Duncan Fraser, the auditor of the City of Manchester, who was called in to deal with the cost of their superannuation scheme. It is a preliminary report and this is what he says:
The cost of a Superannuation Scheme may appear to be heavy, but there are so many incidental advantages and savings that there is no doubt in my mind that the adoption of such a scheme is to the advantage of the Corporation, even from a pecuniary point of view. In this connection I quote the following expression of opinion, with which I fully agree, from an Actuary of great experience:—
A fund, maintained in a sound financial condition, is, in my opinion, a blessing to both employer and employee.
The employer has the pick of the clerical market for the salaries offered, for a man would sooner take service in a firm where a pension is guaranteed, and at a lower salary than where no pension is promised; he secures a continuity of service, for the employee will think twice before he leaves a service, where he has a number of years to his credit for pension, for a small additional income; and if he (the employer) makes a proper contribution to the Fund, in addition to guaranteeing a good rate of interest, he secures efficiency in the service by superannuating his servants with a reasonable pension when they are no longer useful. His salary list is a good 5 per cent.—I am inclined to think, in many cases, nearer 10 per cent.—less than it would be if there were no Fund, and I do not think, therefore, that he can reasonably object to subscribe 5 or 6 per cent, of salaries to the Fund.'
In considering the cost, I would further draw attention again to the large number of
persons in the service of the Corporation who are already 65 years of age or over. At 31st March, 1919, this number was 422, and their salaries, wages, and emoluments amounted to £47,490. There is no doubt that many of these men are practically superannuated, although they are nominally in receipt of salaries or wages, and if there were a regular superannuation fund the Corporation's contribution to such fund would take the place of the existing salaries and wages. Then, again, a portion of these men who are drawing maximum salaries would be replaced by juniors at the lowest end of the scale. It will be seen, therefore, that there are many set-offs to the cost as shown above, but from the nature of the case it is impossible to reduce them to precise calculation.
That reminds me of a case in my own county not many years ago. An old and very valued servant had arrived at the time when he could no longer perform his duty efficiently. It was impossible to expect that he would go on, and yet he had been associated with the county, in its history as a local government entity, since 1889. He had done work the lull extent of which could not be over-estimated. The difficulty was to know what to do-with that man. You could not cut him off. Under the old scheme his income had been, as it were, "farmed"; he had assistants in the office, and he was receiving what I may call a "farmed" salary, which was hopelessly insufficient to make proper provision for superannuation. The time came when the county council had to face the difficulty of whether or not they were going to send this man adrift. The solution arrived at was that while the duties of his office should be performed by his successor, he should be continued in one of the three offices which he formerly held, and an adequate allowance made to him nominally by way of salary for discharging a duty, while that duty was actually performed by another, and this man very rarely, if ever, entered the Guildhall. By this device, and it was only a device, a reasonable income was allowed to him to live out his few remaining years in relative comfort. That will not be done by many authorities, and it is necessary to have a scheme such as this, which will put beyond question hardships in such cases.
Much more could be said upon the desirability of such a system. The subject has been dealt with by successive Presidents of the Local Government
Board and by Ministers of Health. In 1914, two months before the War, the Right Hon. Herbert Samuel received a deputation from the National Association of Local Government Officers, and after reciting the way in which some classes of officers, by legislation, had obtained pensions, stated he was proposing to take steps to do the best he could to help some such scheme, some such general Measure as I am introducing this morning. He said:
Therefore, I propose, as the outcome of this deputation, to draw up a statement of the present position in regard to the superannuation of local government officers to make mention of the various considerations to which I have drawn attention to-day, and to communicate with the great organisations that represents the local authorities, to communicate officially with the Municipal Corporations Association, the County Councils Association and the Urban and Rural District Councils Association, and to ask them whether they would approve an inquiry being held into the whole of this vast question—for it is a question of great importance involving immense sums of public money as well as private contributions from your officers and affecting tens of thousands of persons, and also having a great influence on the future of local government in this country. I am not sure that it is not of sufficient importance for inquiry by Royal Commission, but upon that I do not wish to prouounce. It may be some other form may be found preferable. I am glad you have drawn my attention to this matter. Your Association represents a great body of men who take a great interest in this matter, and you have brought to my attention to-day a topic which has for many years past exercised the minds of a great number of Local Government officers, and I hope the steps I am now proposing to take will meet with your concurrence and possibly that the outcome will be an advance towards its goal.
The War came within two months of that, and it was not found possible to do anything. In February, 1918, the late Lord Downham, then President of the Local Government Board, received a deputation from the National Association, and I will quote from the answer which he gave:—
You have no difficulty in proving your preamble to me. It has indeed been proved, long ago, that superannuation produces from the point of view of the employer— which is the public—as well as the employed the best service in the interest of the employer. If anything, matters which have occurred since the War have accentuated and strengthened the case for superannuation. I am never tired of expressing heartfelt gratitude to Local Government officers for the marvellous way in which they have responded to the different calls made upon
them to put their local machinery at the service of the Government for the purpose of carrying out national objects to national interest. One cannot praise them too highly. When we consider the problems of reconstruction, we realise the difficulties which will arise from changes which may occasion the need for transfer of duties and of officials from one branch of administration to another. My friend Mr. Fisher at the Board of Education has already been confronted with that problem in thinking what Parliament will be able to do in the matter of teachers in secondary and technical schools. I shall communicate at once with the County Council Association, the Association of Municipal Corporations and the Urban District Councils Associations and inform them that I have in my mind the immediate—not future—setting up of a Committee, if I can get the services of suitable gentlemen qualified to make examination of this proposal. I should indicate not unwillingness but a willingness and desire to carry the question a stage further. A scheme of superannuation would undoubtedly be a great improvement to the public service which you so ably carry out.
Communications were sent to these authorities, and the result was a Departmental Committee was set up and they reported in July, 1919, on the desirability of a scheme of superannuation. I shall not weary the House with long quotations from the Report, but I should like to read a paragraph from Section III of the Report, which was the unanimous part of the Report:
We do not hesitate about the first part of our reference. It is undoubtedly desirable that superannuation should be introduced for persons employed by local authorities in England and Wales—
I do not understand why the Report does not include Scotland also—
Not only public authorities … but many private undertakings have put into force schemes of superannuation, … In other ways an acceptable system of superannuation tends to safeguard efficiency; by this means persons employed are relieved of anxieties for their future when advancing years or failing health may deprive them of the power to work: the employer on the other hand secures a more contented staff unburdened by the presence of aged or infirm members retained out of compassion, who, although they can no longer discharge adequately the duties of their offices, remain, … Witnesses have cited to us numerous instances in which local authorities, out of regard for long and faithful service, have continued to employ persons who are unfit by reason of old age or infirmity to carry on their duties efficiently. Some continue to do their work, though not as it should be done, some virtually do no work at all, and others have been appointed to consultative posts at a reduced salary not always with advantage to the service.
The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shoreditch (Dr. Addison), when Minister of Health, also received a deputation of the same sort, and in his answer he said that a Bill was actually in the hands of the Government draftsman and would be put upon the stocks, but nothing has come of it. It may be that the Geddes Report is frightening the various Departments of the Government. Sufficient to say no such Bill has been introduced by the Government nor has any notice been given of any such Bill. I think I have reason to suggest that, unless this Bill is passed, it may be some considerable time before the local government officers will be able to accomplish this desirable reform. I have said that this Bill is founded on the Middlesex Act of last year. That Act, in addition to applying to the staff of the county council itself, contained a provision enabling the Act to be adopted by any of the Middlesex local authorities with a population of 50,000 or over. If that be so, and it is a strange thing that the Bill passed Committee in both Houses without any opposition, how unjust it is that local authorities in areas of 50,000 people and upwards in, say, Hertford, or Kent, or Surrey, should not have equal opportunities with those possessed, by accident, by the minor authorities of Middlesex. This Bill will cure that. I have already commented on the favour able criticism of the Middlesex scheme actuarily, and I need not say that every local authority which chooses to adopt this Bill will be in an equally good position.
I have done, for I hestitate to say anything further, or to give more statistics to the House. I understand there is minor opposition only. I am looking for the hon. Member who was to have moved the rejection of the Bill and I do not see him; it may be that task is now in the hands of others. I understood the rejection was to be moved by those who are interested in the urban districts and the small rural districts, and that the ground of their objection is that these authorities are too small to be able to establish a financially sound scheme. I cannot understand that reason at all. In Committee it would be perfectly competent for us, without interfering with the scope of the Bill, to move that there shall be
groups of the smaller authorities in order to bring a scheme into operation and to ensure that it may be sound financially. If the Committee choose to insert a provision for grouping these bodies, it will not be difficult to carry it out. It is rather an unworthy object to try to wreck a Bill because there may be some authorities so small that they cannot support a scheme financially. Why should not the officers of their larger brother authorities have the benefits of such a scheme? Then I am told they would rather wait, and wait an indefinite time, to get a general and compulsory Bill. I do not think that is the opinion of the great body of local government officers, and as this Bill has been presented with the full concurrence of the national association, I would prefer to take this view rather than the view of the Urban District and Rural District Councils' Association. I cannot help thinking there is another reason, maybe a hidden one, why opposition is offered to this. Of course, it will do away with the necessity for promoting private Bill legislation. It will, no doubt, limit very largely opportunities for expenditure there, and that may not be viewed altogether with friendliness in certain quarters, but I sincerely hope that is not the real reason why this opposition is offered. Again, it is objected that the Bill does not include part-time officials. My answer to that is that I am perfectly willing, as introducer of the Bill, to extend it to part-time officials if the Committee upstairs agree. I sincerely hope it may be possible to send this Bill upstairs, in order that it may be investigated by the Committee. I ask the House, in fulfilment of the debt that the country owes to local government officers, who have hitherto not been able, by the misfortunes of their situation, to get the benefit of superannuation, to pass the Second Reading of the Bill, and send it upstairs for more minute investigation in order that the very substantial grievances of a very deserving class of public servants may be remedied.

Mr. NEVILLE CHAMBERLAIN: I desire to second the Motion.
Looking at the general question of superannuation from the point of view of local government administration, I think it might be said that three advantages
present themselves to one's mind. First of all, it enables a local government authority to attract to its service a better class of men than it could otherwise get. Secondly, it enables the authority to keep officials in its service for many years and enables it to remove an official who has ceased to be efficient through old age without doing him an injustice or running contrary to its own natural feelings. I have worked in close association with a large number of local government officers. They do not have a very easy time of it. They have to serve masters who are constantly changing and they have to combine a loyalty to these matters and their changing policies with what they believe to be the interests of the department they serve. Whenever there comes a crisis such as those of which we had many during the War, and at times of extensive trade disputes, it is always to the local government officers that we go to organise whatever arrangements may be necessary to deal with the crisis, and in the last few years there have been brilliant examples of public service by these officers. It may be asked, If we have been so singularly successful in the type of public servant we have succeeded in attracting to local government, what need is there to do anything further? It is true that under most of the larger local authorities superannuation schemes are already in existence. I would make two observations upon that. It is the case, unfortunately, that the preserve of local government officers is no longer inviolate. There is a hungry wolf, with a heavy paw, in the shape of the business man, who is continually prospecting among local government officers to see if he cannot find some whom he can attract to his own service, thinking their abilities are being Wasted in their present occupation.
It is a fact that a good number of men have been attracted from public service into commercial life by the prospect of substantially - increased remuneration. Happily, money is not everything to a great many people, and many who enter the public service cannot be induced to leave it by the most tempting offers, because they are pround of their work, they love it, and they would not exchange it for anything else, especially for work of a character which is unfamiliar to them. But it is necessary to make these officers as comfortable as possible, and to give
them every inducement to stay—shoit of trying to compete for their services with business and commercial concerns, for that is utterly beyond the capacity of local councils. Short of that, everything should be done to encourage them to stay, and to give their abilities and experience to the public service. The great local authorities have to choose their officers from a field which embraces the smaller local authorities, and as a rule those who come to the big provincial towns are men who have begun public service under some quite small authority.
If these small local authorities cannot continue to attract a superior type of man, the big authorities, even those with superannuation schemes, are going to suffer, for they will not have the same field to draw upon. That seems to me a strong argument, from the point of view of the local authorities, in favour of a general superannuation scheme. My hon. Friend has described the general position with all its anomalies and all its unfairness and all its injustices, and he has shown that we have side by side officers doing similar work, one of whom may look forward to enjoying a superannuation allowance, while the other has no such privilege. That is not likely to lead to contentment and satisfaction in the service. The position, as he has pointed out, has been recognised by Minister after Minister. It is very seldom you find a private Member's Bill introduced into this House which has behind it such a history of official approval as the present Bill, and although the Minister of Health does not, I know, agree literally with everything that his predecessors have done or said, I venture to suggest that, in this respect, he will take the view expressed by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Shoreditah (Dr. Addison) when he said that he did not wonder that after 35 years of talk, and nothing done, the local government officers felt they had a legitimate grievance.
My hon. Friend has not thought it necessary to go into any analysis of the Clauses of the Bill. Many of them are somewhat technical in their character and when he has not thought it necessary perhaps I need not step in where he has feared to tread. But I should like to make an allusion to one Clause, namely, Clause 2, which gives permission to local authorities to adopt the Measure. As the Bill stands at present, it applies to all officers and all
workmen employed by local authorities. It is, I think, the fear that a measure applying to all workmen might involve considerable expenditure that has kept a great many local authorities, especially the smaller ones, from adopting a scheme of this kind. Experience shows, as a matter of fact, that workmen do not take advantage of schemes of this kind to anything like the same extent as officers. Take our own experience at Birmingham. The number of workmen in our scheme is only one-third of the number of officers, although the number of workmen employed is vastly in excess of the number of officers. Therefore I do not think that the fears of local authorities—if they have had such fears—are likely to be realised. It does seem to me that since this is a permanent scheme it might be a good thing to allow an authority to adopt the Measure in respect of its officers only, or its workmen only, because that might induce an authority to begin a scheme, let us say, in respect to its officers, which would never put a scheme into operation if it were obliged to include not only its officers but its workmen. I suggest to my hon. Friend that he should give favourable consideration to any Amendment upstairs which would have that effect. I would repeat only what my hon. Friend has said, that it would be inconsistent and illogical on the part of any authority who thought this Measure did not suit a particular need, to deprive other local authorities of its benefits if they thought it suited them. I hope the House will be unanimous in giving a Second Reading to the Bill and will devote to it very careful and sympathetic consideration upstairs.

12 N.

Mr. GEORGE ROBERTS: I would like to associate myself with the Second Beading of this Bill. On the general principle, I am desirous of seeing every employed person, whether employed by local authorities or by firms, possessing the security of superannuation throughout his working life. For the greater part of my life I have been associated with the trade union movement, and I have always urged that superannuation schemes should form part of the operations of that beneficent organisation, because I have experienced that when men can look forward to a particular time to enter into the enjoy-
ment of superannuation benefit, their membership is more stable and they act much more responsibly than if they had nothing to risk. It can be supported by evidence, if necessary, that the best trade unions in the country are those which attach great importance to the benefits of superannuation and similar schemes, and if that could be generally adopted, much of the abuse complained of in these organisations would be eliminated, because of the fact that these benefits tend to create a much more intimate interest on the part of the member than if they were absent.
In respect of public services, I think this House has a special responsibility. So far development has been very casual and haphazard. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) was able to point out that numbers of public servants are already in the enjoyment of this benefit. It seems to me indefensible that there should be others equally worthy, rendering equally good service to the public, who are denied these benefits. I have no hesitation in saying I would have preferred a comprehensive and compulsory scheme. I feel that if the case be of the strength submitted here to-day, the mere doubt which will exist as to whether worthy persons can enjoy the benefit or not is not a desirable state to create. Nevertheless, we have to look at these matters from a practical point of view, and I am told that the representatives of these officers entitled to speak on their behalf are prepared to accept this Measure in the hope that it will develop into what they desire, embracing the whole of the public service in a scheme of this character.
There are many anomalies familiar to everybody. We know of cases such as this. A clerk to a borough in London is entitled to superannuation, whereas a town clerk of a borough, such as that I represent, is not so entitled. Again, a rate collector appointed by a board of guardians is entitled to superannuation, whereas one appointed by a district council is not so entitled. I think that we must aim at shaping a policy which will remove all these anomalies, and make the provision of superannuation one of the general principles of public service; and, of course, we ought to urge Government and public authorities to set an example to private firms in this matter. This movement has spread very rapidly
amongst the best firms in the country, and many of them have now made provision on behalf of their employés for superannuation. In the general interest of the employed persons, it is all to the good, because, as my hon. and learned Friend has pointed out, the absence of such a provision very often blocks opportunities for promotion. Naturally a local authority, and very often firms themselves, having had excellent and efficient service on the part of somebody in their employ, are very reluctant to discharge him, even at an age when he can no longer render such efficient service, and, as has been pointed out, many devices are resorted to. I know friends of mine who have reached an age when they ought to be able to retire, but, because of the absence of any provision for superannuation, they are retained by their councils in a consultative capacity, whereas the work is being performed by other and younger men. This involves an additional expenditure to local authorities. It also has a tendency to block promotion, and, of course, to destroy the stimulus which is necessary to secure the best services from these younger men.
For all these considerations, I think it would be a very gracious thing for the House to accept the Second Reading of this Bill without opposition. Again, I think opposition will very largely be avoided because of the fact that the officers concerned have accepted the principle of contributing towards the scheme. For my own part, I always felt that with contribution on the part of those who are to receive benefits, it can never be alleged against them that they are in receipt of anything in the nature of charity, public or otherwise, and it does tend to induce a constant interest on the part of those who contribute to such schemes. I remember, when I used to sit with my hon. Friends on the other side, we engaged in a great controversy within our own party as to the advantage or otherwise of a contributory or non-contributory scheme of health, and subsequently unemployment, insurance. I stood then with those of my colleagues in favour of the contributory principle, and so it is I am glad to see that these officers concerned have accepted this principle, and are willing that it should be applied in this case. With reference to the Bill itself, I have found a perusal of it to be
rather involved. I am certainly not in a position to-day to pass in review its several Clauses with any particular intelligent capacity, but undoubtedly it has been very carefully drafted, though I can conceive it will require very close consideration on the part of the Standing Committee, to which, I presume, it will be referred. Having regard to the very comprehensive statement of my hon. and learned Friend who introduced this Bill—and I congratulate him upon having made very good use of the opportunity he secured in the Ballot—I think it is unnecessary to weary the House at any great length, but I certainly trust the House will give this Bill a Second Reading.

Lieut.-Colonel BUCHANAN: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) I have had some experience of dealing and working with officers of local government bodies, and I would like to join with him in intense admiration of these officers, as also for the way they stick to their own business and will not leave for employment with private individuals. I have in my mind an official of a local authority in Scotland who not many years ago was offered a salary in London double what he is getting at the present moment, and with half the work, and yet his loyalty was such to his present employers, the county council, that he is still remaining where he is at half the salary he might have been getting. My hon. Friend also referred to the difficulties of these men's work. He said that the policy changed, and they had to keep pace with the change in policy of the 'members of their authority. Difficulties are also made for them from another fact. I think he will agree with me that there is a large number of members of every local authority who consider that the officials are made for their special convenience, and they bother them morning, noon and night. I think everyone in this House is in sympathy with these men, who work so hard, and if we can do anything by this Measure to put them on a more satisfactory footing, and give them something to which they can look forward in their old age, we ought to do so. This Measure does something else. It gives some small sum to widows. I think this Measure will also lead to a very great extent to a change from the practice of keeping officials when long past their work. I have in my own
mind a dear old gentleman. It was really a mercy when he was taken aloft, because, in the kindness of our hearts, we were never able to get rid of him, and our work was never done.
There is one little point on which I should like to ask my hon. and learned Friend to enlighten me. Under Clause 16 it seems to me that the older members of staffs at the present moment who have not contributed may, by special resolution of a local authority, have an increase to their superannuation allowance. I should like to ask my hon. and learned Friend whether, under Clause 19, there is not a chance of the younger contributors who come on later having to increase their contributions to the superannuation fund. I suppose it is hardly likely, because there will be so few of these staffs who have attained the age of 55, but I think it is always the tendency of the local authority to take the word "may" to mean "shall," and to be too generous, and give the higher amount to people who are retiring. Is there any chance of this creating what I may call a slump in the funds?

Sir H. NIELD: The hon. and gallant Gentleman may rest content that that contingency has been fully dealt with by the framers of the original Act.

The MINISTER of HEALTH (Sir Alfred Mond): The House will probably expect a few explanatory words from me on the Bill. The subject is a familiar one, and has been discussed for very many years, both in Parliament and outside. It was the intention of the Government at one time to introduce a compulsory Bill to cover the question of superannuation of officers of local authorities throughout the country, but it was felt in the present case of local finances that a compulsory scheme would entail a heavy burden, the imposition of which could hardly be faced at the present time. The hon. Gentleman who introduced this Bill, and those who are working with him, are proposing merely that this Bill should be of a permissive character, that it shall allow local authorities to proceed in so far as they think they possibly can. That, of course, throws a greater responsibility on the local people themselves. I have listened very carefully to the speeches of those who support these proposals, and I note
that they confine themselves to the question of the principle that something more ought to be done as regards superannuation funds by local authorities. They did not, however, enter into the very difficult questions raised by this Bill, which has 30 Clauses, some of which raise very serious actuarial points, and technical and financial difficulties.
Such a Bill as this runs the risk of imposing upon the local authorities of this country the figure estimated at something like three or four millions a year. Hon. Gentlemen have not entered into the very difficult actuarial calculations of the additional burden to the rates that this Bill will or will not impose. The hon. Member for Ladywood (Mr. N. Chamberlain) pointed out that the employés, that is the workmen, of the local authorities would not avail themselves of this kind of scheme. Everything hinges upon that. The officers of local authorities are, of course, a very limited number, and the amount added to the rates by a scheme of this kind, if they only were dealt with by the Bill, although considerable, would not be overwhelming. It is only right that I should say I am not using this argument, of necessity, against the Bill, but hon. Members ought to have some conception of the possible consequences which this Bill may have, so that a survey of the whole circumstances may lead us to a definite conclusion on the matter.
This Bill is drafted so as to extend to local authorities as small as parish meetings and parish councils. Anyone with any experience of superannuation funds will know that local authorities with two or three or perhaps half a dozen officials cannot possibly bear a superannuation fund. A Departmental Committee examined this Subject, and confined superannuation schemes to local authorities with a population of over 50,000. The hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) himself realised the difficulty and proposed—though I am not for the moment prepared to say whether or not it is a good proposal—a grouping system. But apart from this, I question very much whether the matter would go forward. That matter will have to be very carefully looked into in the Committee stage, and we then would also have to consider the recommendations of the Departmental Committee. We have very little actuarial knowledge of the
circumstances involved in this Bill. I am not sure, but I believe when the Middlesex County Council introduced the Bill on which this Bill is drafted, no actuarial calculations had been made, and only experience, of course, will show how far such a system proposed would or would not be sound.
It is proposed in Clause 19 that in the event of a surplus or deficiency being disclosed on an actuarial valuation such surplus or deficiency is to be credited or debited to the local authority. In the event of a deficiency the rate to be charged to future entrants may be increased to such an extent as will prevent a further deficit. But the Bill is silent as to how the local authority is to liquidate the accrued deficiency. If the Clause means that the amount of any deficiency is to fall upon the rates in a lump sum in the year in which it is disclosed, it is obvious that the proposal is impracticable. If the deficiency is merely intended to be a moral obligation on the authority it will grow at compound interest and eventually impose a crushing burden on a generation of ratepayers not responsible for its creation. Similarly, in case of surplus it would be unsound to divert a surplus, which might have arisen owing to fortuitous circumstances, in aid of the rates for any one year. Financial prudence obviously requires that a surplus should be carried forward until sufficient experience has been obtained of the working of an individual fund to indicate definitely that the contributions paid are in fact in excess of the requirements. Frequent variations of the scale of contributions should clearly be avoided. Examination reveals a good many serious differences and difficulties, and that is why I want the House to realise that, in dealing with a matter of such considerable importance, the matter should be given the most careful attention. There is a good deal to be said for that from the point of view of local administration. No one wishes to dispense with the services of old and faithful officers who for many years have served with great ability and devotion without giving them something. I am sure nobody has the heart to cut them off without any pension. On the other hand, it must be remembered that in many cases on retirement a number of years are added to their service. I think all these things
should be borne in mind. I have to safeguard myself in these matters in view of the cost of the actual terms which are now proposed, which I think on close-examination will be found not altogether easy to carry out. There is a very important question arising in regard to the definition of salary. The Bill defines, salary as including:
Any war bonus or part thereof which may be made a permanent addition to salary.
This is one of those things that requires looking into very carefully. We know the kind of difficulties which have arisen by treating war bonus as part of the salary when it comes to pension rights. We know the difficulty that has arisen by war bonus given only on account of the high cost of living purely as a temporary measure when it comes to the question of the pension allowance, and therefore that part of the Bill will require very careful scrutiny. All these points have to be very carefully considered and safeguarded. I am inclined to think the most practical plan will be to include war bonus in salary for the purpose both of contributions and of benefits. Clause 2 empowers any authority to bring itself within the scheme by a resolution passed by the majority of the members of the local authority. I think it is essential that the members concerned should be made fully aware of the burden which would fall upon the rates.

Sir H. NIELD: The Act of last year, on which this Bill is framed, actually gave the inhabitants of Middlesex the right to adopt it, and Parliament finally accepted that provision.

Sir A. MOND: I do not remember that that question was actually before the House.

Sir H. NIELD: The Bill proposed to give that power to cases under 20,000, but the chairman of the Middlesex County Council conceded the point that 50,000 might be put in its place.

Sir A. MOND: I do not think in these matters we should be governed by the decisions of the Middlesex County Council.

Sir H. NIELD: You might do worse than that.

Sir A. MOND: At any rate, I think these other facts ought to be fully considered. I am afraid that the carrying out of some of these duties imposed upon the Minister of Health would make that Minister very unpopular. There are, of course, a considerable number of further points, with which I do not want to trouble the House at the present time, but which, if the Bill gets a Second Reading, we shall have an opportunity of discussing upstairs in Committee. I do not raise these points in any hostile spirit, but this is an important Measure, and no one in charge of my Department can disregard the question of the financial and actuarial stability of the scheme. When we get into Committee all these points will have to be considered, and I have no doubt that the promoters of the Bill will be ready to receive any reasonable suggestion.

Sir THOMAS BRAMSDON: I am sure that we are all grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his criticism of this Bill. His criticism is not unfriendly, and it does raise some really important points, which we are very glad to have. May I say, as one of the promoters of the Bill, that I am sure that my hon. Friends associated with me will be only too glad to give every possible consideration to any reasonable suggestion made on these points in Committee. He starts, however, with the idea that there is a general census of opinion that this Bill is wanted both by corporations and officials, and that is a very healthy thing with which to start. We in this House are constantly devolving duties and powers upon the local authorities, and it is therefore desirable that those who have, by administration, to discharge the work which we devolve upon them should be deserving officers, efficient officers, and contented officers, and at the present time there is not that content which should exist. We shall, by passing this Bill, very much improve the general administration of the local authorities throughout the country. It will encourage efficiency, it will encourage thrift, and it will place the general regulations as to superannuation and pensions on an ideal and unified basis. It is rather anomalous that there should be so many systems in existence throughout the country, and I hope, if this Measure works with success, as I think it will, that we may have other institu-
tions coming in to participate in this general scheme, and that it may even become universal throughout the country. I am cordially in favour of the Bill, and all I wish to do is to express my approval of it.

Lieut.-Colonel WHELER: I have been asked to mention the views of the Rural District Councils Association. When all is said and done, the rural district councils at the present time are in a very difficult financial position, and they have asked me to say that, after consideration of this Bill, while they realise that it can be put into operation by the bigger bodies, they do not, owing to their difficulties, see very much likelihood of schemes being adopted by the rural district councils. I would not for one moment subscribe to the view that, because they cannot put it into operation, therefore other bodies must not be allowed to do so. That seems to me to be quite an unfair attitude to take up. The rural district councils, owing especially to agricultural depression, are to-day in a very difficult financial position. They find it very hard even to collect their rates. Therefore any further burdens which they may have to face is a very difficult proposition for them, and one which they have to consider. We fully realise that this Bill will require most careful consideration in Committee. The grouping system may be a way by which these bodies may be able to come into the scheme, always bearing in mind that it must be optional to the bodies which make up the group. Realising that that system of grouping of smaller bodies may be a means by which a superannuation scheme may be brought into force in the rural districts, I do not propose to say anything more, though I have ventured to put these views before the House, because a great deal has been said on behalf of the urban districts which are in a better financial state. The rural districts are in a very critical financial condition, and, however much they may desire to do for those who serve them, their financial condition may make it impossible to adopt the scheme.

Colonel Sir A. SPROT: Speaking as a councillor for a Scottish county, I desire to add a few words in support of this Bill. The strong point in its favour is that it is a permissive Bill. A county council or other local authority will not be obliged to adopt it unless it feels that its financial position warrants it in so
doing. If, after discussion, a local authority finds that it is desirable to adopt this Bill, then it will have machinery at its hand in order to provide superannuation for its officers, which I hold to be extremely desirable. I am well aware of incidents such as those mentioned by other hon. Members. We have had old servants who have got past their work, and the problem has been how to dispose of them without dismissing them and leaving them with nothing upon which to live. One method of dealing with the situation has been to appoint an assistant who draws a portion of the salary and to keep the old servant still nominally in his position. That is a sort of sham and camouflage which it is desirable should be done away with, and, if this Bill passes into law, then local authorities will have the opportunity of doing so. I welcome this Measure in the interests of a very valuable set of public servants whose duties have been enormously increased of late years by the new legislation which has been thrown upon them by this House. I congratulate the Mover of the Bill upon having obtained a place for it in the Ballot, and I am glad that the Minister of Health has received it in a friendly spirit. None of us are pledged to adopt the details of the Bill as it stands, which, no doubt, will be discussed in Committee, and I trust that the Bill will receive a Second Reading.

Mr. SUGDEN: I think we are all agreed that superannuation is necessary and proper for public servants, whether they be civil servants or servants of a county or municipality, and I welcome a scheme whereby these people may receive the support and protection for their old age which is vitally essential if we are to have their best services, whether county, municipal or national. Having carefully considered this Bill, I find there is a very great danger that not only rural councils, but urban district councils are going to be penalised to a very serious extent, and there is going to be tremendous difficulty in obtaining the best service for urban councils, by reason of their handicapped financial powers, as they will not be able to give such a superannuation scheme, either in bulk or separately, as is needed for the staffs of these authorities in competition with cities and towns. I desire, therefore, a definite promise from the hon. and learned Gentleman who has introduced
this Bill that he will give such protection for the servants of these small urban district councils as is needed, and that, in consultation with the Treasury, there will be drawn up such a scheme as will make it possible for urban district councils to obtain equally efficient officers as the big cities and county authorities. If my right hon. Friend will study the position, he will find it almost impossible for many authorities to do this, and, while I support the Bill, I reserve to myself the right to move an Amendment to give certain opportunities to urban district councils to participate equally with such great cities and towns. Some of us who have had sympathetic knowledge of the superannuation schemes of education authorities realise how these schemes are weak and inefficient in so far as they affect the people who are to participate in the benefit. We shall want, therefore, to very carefully consider the scheme adumbrated in this Bill. I suggest that when the Bill goes to Committee, we should secure the very finest actuarial advice from insurance companies, which are powerful and expert in respect of this kind of information, and that we should call into consultation also the representatives of urban and rural district councils, to consider how a really equitable scheme may be obtained for all and, if necessary, to ensure that some of the financial burden upon the poorer urban and rural councils shall, be borne by the richer bodies.

Mr. WILLIAM GRAHAM: In view of the fact that the Government have agreed to allow this Bill to have a Second: Reading this afternoon, it is quite unnecessary to detain the House for more than a few minutes. Indeed, I should not have spoken at all but for the points of criticism which have been urged against those of us who are supporting this Measure to-day. My hon. Friend the Member for Royton (Mr. Sugden) has drawn attention to the position of very small local authorities in this country, and to the great difficulty which they must experience in setting up any superannuation scheme. I cannot for the moment recall the exact terms of the Report of the Departmental Committee, but I am perfectly sure that in it reference is made somewhere to the grouping of areas, and I have no hesitation in saying, on behalf of those who are promoting this Bill, that that is a
proposal to which we shall give careful and sympathetic consideration in the Committee stage. We recognise that there must be a considerable number of contributors in order to get a thoroughly satisfactory superannuation scheme, and there need be no hesitation in the minds of hon. Members this afternoon in supporting the Bill on that ground.
The only other question to which I wish very briefly to refer was raised by the hon. and learned Member who introduced this Measure (Sir H. Nield) when he referred to the difficulty which many Members of this House will experience in supporting a Measure if the element of compulsion is introduced. My duty this afternoon is merely to make plain one or two simple points on that issue. There is no doubt that the overwhelming majority if not all the local government officials in this country would prefer a compulsory scheme. They feel very strongly that unless the scheme proceeds on those lines it can never be of a truly satisfactory character. In common with all others, however, they recognise the difficulties of local and national finance at the present time, and with very great generosity they are giving this Bill their very cordial support. What I want to emphasise, however, is this consideration, that we are making too much of the difficulty of the compulsory principle at the present time. If this present Measure were compulsory it would be applied only to the residue of the local government officers in Great Britain, not exceeding 38,500, who are not now covered by superannuation schemes. If it were applied to workmen then 167,000 men, spread over the whole country, would come within the scope of the Bill. Therefore quite clearly we are dealing with a very narrow and restricted problem in the aggregate personnel. On the question of workmen I am bound to say that personally I believe in a comprehensive scheme. There are districts in which comprehensive schemes have already been introduced with very great success, but in common fairness it must be admitted that in other districts workmen have definitely applied to be excluded. It will be important on the Committee stage of this Bill to analyse these questions and to try and arrive at some settlement of the problem whether the scheme should proceed on the basis
of including officers and workmen, or whether an option in favour of officers only ought to be accorded to the local authorities, as the hon. and learned Promoter of the Bill has suggested. I mainly want to emphasise the very restricted character of the numbers involved. If we confine ourselves to officers, only 38,500 men would be brought in if this Bill were made compulsory, in addition to those already covered by superannuation schemes.
There are only, in conclusion, one or two other points which I think are worth mentioning to-day. Hon. Members might hesitate if the Bill were compulsory, because of the increased charge on the local rates, but it is only fair to point out that certain savings would accrue, and that, in fact, the charge would be not nearly so heavy as hon. Members imagine, if in some districts there was any additional charge at all. The first point is that the contribution would not fall wholly upon the local rates, because there are the burdens in superannuation which are so far carried by the trading schemes of these municipalities, and which would be carried by the trading schemes of the municipalities brought under this Bill. Then there are certain Government grants towards established services which also fall to be taken into account. In the next place, if the Bill were applied on compulsory lines, there would be a certain saving in national health and national insurance contributions, because there would then be that certainty of employment, that security against dismissal, except for misconduct or neglect, and those conditions which entitle workmen and others to be placed beyond the reach of the unemployment insurance scheme. I mention these points because so far they have not been raised in the Debate, but quite obviously they are important matters for the Committee stage.
Lastly, there is the fact that the existence of a superannuation scheme would mean, as other hon. Members have pointed out, that men who retired at the peak of their remuneration in the local service would not be continued on those wasteful lines which have been described this afternoon, but would be replaced by younger men at lower rates of salary, while the older servants would take their
place on the superannuation scheme to which they and the local authorities had contributed during their time of service. For these reasons, I think we are able to make a very complete reply to the possible danger of the extra burden of a compulsory scheme. But I want to say that the local government officers of this country fully recognise the difficulty of adding anything to national or local burdens at this time, and they have expressed their willingness to consider these matters in the fairest possible way on the Committee stage, although they recognise that this Measure falls short of the definite recommendations of the Departmental Committee which was appointed to consider this problem. For these reasons, we on these benches very cordially support this Measure and we will do everything in our power to make it effective in the Committee discussion upstairs.

1.0 P.M.

Mr. ALFRED LAW: The supreme merit of this Bill is that it is not obligatory, but optional on all local authorities, and that is, to my mind, a reason for the support which I am glad to give to it to-day. If it were made obligatory on the local authorities, ratepayers would not have the opportunity, as they can have now, when the elections come round, to vote for or against those who adopt this scheme, and therefore I think it is wise that the Bill should be optional rather than compulsory. Having been approached by some of my constituents to support this Bill, I feel it my duty to give it my support on Second Reading. In the past, rural districts as well as urban districts have been at some disadvantage in this matter, and I see no reason why in the Committee upstairs they should not be brought under the Bill. The Measure, I think, should be extended not only to large municipalities, but in regard to rural districts it might well be considered whether it would not be advisable to bring them under the scheme. Anyhow, for the time being, I have great pleasure in supporting the Second Reading of the Bill.

Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time," put, and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

RAILWAY FIRES ACT (1905) AMENDMENT BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. TOWNLEY: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
In bringing this Measure before the House, I am sure it will be in the recollection of many Members that in travelling along the railway during the last year we were constantly reminded not only of the dry season, but of the great damage that was done to the occupiers of land by the fires which had occurred all along the railway. In some cases, of course, they were small fires, but in some cases they were a great deal larger, and in my own recollection there is a case, not far from Cambridge, where a fire had spread right across one field and had burnt the agricultural implements on the other side. Railway companies are liable for unlimited damage when you can claim negligence, but negligence is not by any manner of means easy to prove, and, therefore, no doubt, it was that in 1905 this House passed a Measure, the Railway Fires Act, by which persons who had a fire caused by sparks or cinders from railway trains were enabled to claim damages of £100, although there was no negligence on the part of the railway company, who were unable to plead that they had statutory running powers. This Bill, which is a very small Measure, and one which I hope will receive full approval from this House, seeks to alter that very small limit of £100 to £200, and the reason is that when this Measure was passed in 1905, the value of the produce alongside the railway was, practically speaking, one half what it is to-day. The average value of wheat, for instance, for the seven years ended in 1904 was 27s. 4d. or thereabouts, but the value of wheat to-day is practically double. The railway rates to-day are certainly double what they were before. These rates are fixed with a view to meeting the expenses of the railway companies, and one of those expenses is the liability no doubt which they incur by these fires. Then again, under that Act of 1905, a man bad to lodge notice of his claim within seven days, a very short time, and he had to state particulars of his claim within fourteen days. Under this Bill we ask for an extension of those periods so that a man may give notice of a claim within fourteen days instead of seven days, and a statement of his claim within twenty-one days instead
of fourteen days. Under the Act as it stands, if a claim is made which exceeds £100, and an action is brought to recover the sum, it fails, because the claim is for more than £100. We consider that that is very unfair, and that, if the claim is limited to £200, as we suggest, then, although the damage may be more than £200, the person suffering the damage should be able to receive that amount.
It is not necessary for me to go very largely into the matter, but I should like to draw the attention of the House to the original Act as it stands, so that the House may realise what the powers are and what it is that we seek to amend. That Act, to amend which is the object of this Bill, deals only with agricultural land and the crops growing thereon. As soon as the crops, whether they be grass or cereals, are harvested and are led away and stacked, the liability ceases. It is only for the crops which are on the ground; as soon as they are led away the liability ceases. The liability also extends to plantations and orchards, but not to moorlands or to buildings. This Bill, as I have said, is a very small Measure, but it is one that interests a very large number of people. The railways, of course, run here, there, and everywhere, and all the way along the side of the railways there is a liability to these fires—a liability which, as we saw last year, is a very real one. It oftens happens that smallholders—men who have been recently put upon the land— are in occupation of these lands close to the railways, and therefore it may easily be that these men whom we want to protect more particularly, the smallholders, are the men who are most liable to suffer. If damage is done to the extent of between £100 and £200, it is not such a big matter to a really big man as it is to the smaller man, although the value of the produce having doubled, a man, whether he be big or small, is surely entitled to the same ratio of compensation as he was in the past.
I hope the House will not be led into one idea that I have heard stated, namely, that the railway companies had to pay heavily for the right of going through the land, and that that amounts to compensation. So much land in England has changed hands recently, and so much has been sub-divided up into
little pieces, that I hope that will not be allowed to weigh. I repeat that this matter, small as it may seem to the House, and small as the liability will be upon the railway companies, is a matter of intense interest to a very large number of the farming community. They may insure their farm produce, but they cannot insure it along the line except at a very high rate, and, although the amount of any individual claim may be small, it is a matter that comes home very nearly to a great many small men in the country. I appeal to the House, therefore, to make this extension as an act of justice, seeing that in 1905 they acknowledged the principle, and seeing the alteration that has taken place in the value of produce and in railway rates.

Captain BOWYER: I beg to second the Motion.
The principle upon which this Bill is founded is, I submit, a principle which is entirely just, namely, that where loss is suffered and there is no contributory negligence or default on the part of the man who suffers the loss, then that the man who causes the loss should be liable to pay compensation for the damage he has done. Of course, before 1905, the farmer or smallholder whose land happened to lie beside a railway was in a most unfortunate position, because he could not by any conceivable chance get compensation from the railway company unless he could prove negligence on the part of the driver of the train. The first thing he had to do was to discover what engine had actually passed his land at the time, and, secondly, after he had found that out, he had to prove that the driver of the engine had been guilty of negligence in that he had allowed sparks to fly. Of course, the long and short of it was that no possible action was likely to succeed, and very few were ever brought. The case is different to-day, and all that we are seeking to do is to amend the 1905 Act. I submit that that Act is unsatisfactory for five reasons. In the first place, whereas the value of crops has increased enormously since the year 1905, the amount that the railway companies can pay remains constant, being limited to £100. To show the way in which the value of crops has gone up, I may mention that wheat, since 1905, has risen by 112 per cent., barley by 81 per cent., and oats by 98 per cent. The second reason is that road transport has
no statutory protection, and road transport can far more easily be traced. I think that the railway companies, who are given by Statute a great many advantages, should not escape liability, however great the damage is, by the payment of a sum not exceeding £100, and that, in asking for a limit of £200, we are not being unjust to the railway companies of the country.
Thirdly, by the Act of 1905, notice of the claim has to be submitted by the farmer within seven days, and particulars of the damage he has suffered within 14 days. That has been found to be very difficult to work under, and this Bill is much more equitable in seeking to give 14 days in which to send in the claim, and 21 days in which to set out the particulars of that claim. In the fourth place, the sums that have actually been paid by the railway companies are very much less than the damage which has actually been inflicted. I have been given a list of a great number of claims which were put in last summer. Of course, it is true that last summer there was a drought, and the damage liable to be caused by sparks flying from railway engines was far greater than would be the case in a normal year, but I should like to give the House one or two examples of cases which occurred in 1921. A Suffolk farmer, in the month of August, lodged a claim for £893 for damage that he had suffered, and the Great Eastern Railway Company paid the insurance company £45. In another case a Cambridgeshire farmer, in July and August, 1921, had two claims amounting to £391, and he recovered £182 5s. In two other cases, although claims were put in amounting to £200 or £300, not a penny of damage was paid by the railway company at all. Lastly, if the claim put in by a farmer exceeds £100, which was all that the railway company could give, then as I understand now under the Statute the unfortunate farmer could recover nothing, because Section 1, Sub-section (3), says:
This Section shall not apply in the case of any action for damage unless the claim for damage does not exceed £100.
In the present Bill, in order to protect the farmer, and to show that he may not send in a claim for more than the maximum amount which he can expect to receive from the railway company, words have been inserted in Clause 2 stating that the amount of
the claim must not exceed the said sum of £200. Since 1905 with the progress of science and invention the railway companies must have much better methods of obviating the danger of creating damage by sparks. I should be interested to learn, from any hon. Members interested in railway companies, whether the rail-May companies are doing all they can to eliminate the damage done by sparks. It has been said, with what truth I do not know, that the railway companies find this difficulty in that respect, that if they seek to put in operation some new device to eliminate the flying of sparks, unless every company adopts that device on every train, a company might be got at for negligence because of the existence of the device and of their failure to use it. I shall be curious to learn some details on that point if any hon. Member can give them. I submit that this is a reasonable Bill, and that the old legal maxim, which was invented many centuries ago, applies to-day, sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas—use your own goods in such a manner that they will not injure any other person. It is acting on that principle that we ask for a Second Reading of this Bill.

Lreut.-Colonel NALL: The hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Captain Bowyer) has said a great deal about the principle of the Bill. It seems to me that the main principle behind the whole thing is to have one further charge against that unfortunate body who are always to be shot at by anybody, the railway companies. The hon. and gallant Member gave some figures which he alleged supported his case. He quoted the case of a claim for £800 by a farmer who got only £45. If he got only £45 obviously the limit of £100 was not the reason why he could not get more. He gave another instance of a man who got, I think, £182. Surely if the limit was £100—

Captain BOWYER: There was a second claim.

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: He gave still another case of a man who claimed, I think, £200 or £300 and got nothing. Those figures are no evidence. The fact that a man got nothing, though he claimed £200 or £300, has nothing to do with the limiting of the claim to £100. Neither the Mover nor the Seconder has produced one tittle of evidence to show the need for this Bill. It is all very well to say that pricey
have gone up. Prices have been up before and have come down. I do not know whether the promoters of the Bill propose still further to reduce the limit even below £100, if prices go down accordingly. This is just one more of these unjustifiable attempts to add still one more burden to the railway companies of the country, and, however small it may be, obviously the effect, though relatively only small, will be that the more these kinds of charges are levelled against railway companies the community in the end has to pay the railway rates and fares in the long run, and has to stand whatever amount is involved in legislation of this kind. I do hope, in the absence of any real evidence of the need for this Bill, that the House will refuse to pass what seems to me to be a most unnecessary and merely meddlesome attempt to add one further burden to the railway industry.

Mr. MURROUGH WILSON: Like the hon. and gallant Member for Hulme (Lieut.-Colonel Nail), I listened with interest to the speeches of the Mover and Seconder, and listened in vain for any reason to show why the Act of 1905 should be altered. The Act of 1905 did give compensation to the value of £100, without having to prove negligence, to men whose crops were destroyed. I have been listening to hear in what way circumstances have arisen which would make it necessary for Parliament now to say that the value should be increased from £100 to £200. As I understand, the original Act was passed because it was felt that there might be hardship in cases where the value of the crops destroyed was comparatively small, so email that it was hardly worth while going to law with the railway companies because the cost would absorb any damages which the claimants were likely to obtain, and it was pointed out then that these cases did not often occur, and the Act was only to deal with a certain number of individual hardships, which it was thought Parliament ought to look to. It was also pointed out, and I think rightly, that the reason why the railway companies have not been made liable for these damages in the first instance, and why negligence had to be proved, was because, when the land was bought—and this was referred to by the hon. Member who moved the Second Reading—so high a price was paid that it covered all
damages to amenities, including the damages claimed for in this respect, and I submit that the original figure of £100 was agreed to purely as an act of grace and nothing else.
That being the case, unless some very good reason can be put forward, I can see no reason why the amount should be increased from £100 to £200. The hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Captain Bowyer) gave various reasons why the amount should be increased. The first was that the value of the crops had increased in the course of the last few years. It might have been supposed in that case that the figures would show that the value of the claims had risen to such an extent that no longer did the £100 cover claims put forward, but the figures supplied by the railway companies show that out of some 400 claims put forward to the railway companies last year, in the exceptional summer that has been referred to, 335 claims were for less than £25. That is to say, 10 per cent, of the claims were below the figure of £100. Only five per cent, of the claims made were over £100. That being the case, it does not appear that there is any reason at the moment why the figure should be increased from £100 to £200, nor, as far as I can see, is there any reason why the time of notice should be increased from seven to 14 days. Most hon. Members would admit that the Post Office is not as satisfactory as it was in the year 1905, but that is hardly a reason for altering an Act of Parliament.

Mr. TOWNLEY: I did not give that as a reason.

Mr. WILSON: I am very glad to hear that that is not a reason. I was trying only to help my hon. Friend to put forward a possible reason. What it comes to is that circumstances have not altered to any extent and that there is no reason why the amount should be increased. It has become then, a question whether a little more can be got out of the unfortunate railway companies. If the amount to be taken out of the railway companies is to be increased, the railway companies will have to find some way of keeping up their revenue. Yet we have the agricultural community demanding, I think rightly, that rates, and especially agricultural rates, should be reduced. They cannot have it both ways, for the two do not go together. I hope
the House will not give the Bill a Second Reading.

Mr. G. ROBERTS: The question whether railway rates are on a fair basis or not does not enter into the consideration of this Bill. The point has to be considered on its merits. I was rather astounded at the argument of the hon. and gallant Member for Hulme (Lieut. -Colonel Nail). He seemed to think that there were certain people in this House who were animated solely by the desire to add to the burdens of the railway companies. I am certainly not animated by such a desire. In my opinion, however, the railway companies have added considerably to the burdens of the general public and the trading community.

Lieut.-Colonel NALL: This Bill will add another.

Mr. ROBERTS: My hon. and gallant Friend says this Bill will add another burden. If loss has been sustained, it has to be met in some way. It is said, in effect, "If you compel the railway companies to meet it, the community in return will also have to suffer. "Take the case of the smallholder. Labour and capital have been expended in producing crops, and the railway companies, in cases of lire, are the bodies best competent to bear the loss, and in equity they ought to be compelled to do so. The hon. Member who spoke last cold us that only 5 per cent- of the claims made were for sums over £100. The number does not affect the principle. If there were only 1 per cent, there would still be a strong case for the Bill. Is it a fact that devices are in existence for preventing sparks doing damage to crops? I am informed that railway companies have refused to adopt such devices, because as soon as one engine used the device the principle of contributory negligence would be settled. If it is possible to obviate the flying of sparks by the adoption of any device, we ought not to encourage the railway companies to refrain from adopting the device; on the contrary we ought to stimulate them to do so by insisting on their acceptance of the obligations under this Bill. The companies have been telling us that they feel compelled to double their rates. That is evidence of the fact that prices in general have risen. If a limit of £100
was justifiable under the 1905 Act, to double that figure now is wholly defensible. As to the time for giving notices and making statements of claim, a new factor has arisen in the last few years. The large- estates of the country are being cut up. It is the settled policy that we should induce small men to go on the land, and we have now a large number of smallholders who are not accustomed to business methods. It is reasonable that we should ask that they should have a little longer time in which to prepare their claims. This Bill is of small dimensions. Nevertheless, it involves a principle of some importance and the House ought to give it a Second Reading. Criticisms of it may be put to the test before a Committee upstairs.

Mr. INSKIP: I think there is a little misapprehension as to the legal basis on which this matter rests, and perhaps it is as well that the House should understand that it is not exactly a question of negligence at the present time. Parliament has long ago authorised railways to be constructed, and it has authorised them to be constructed for the benefit of the general community. It has given them statutory powers and it has passed Acts to enable railways to be laid throughout the land. It is probably impossible to construct an engine that will prevent sparks from flying under any circumstances. When the Acts were passed, it was known that fires were caused by sparks, and from time to time fires have been caused. The hon. and gallant Member for Buckingham (Captain Bowyer) quoted a legal term and suggested that the railway companies should use their own property in such a way as not to damage the property of others. The maxim is really not applicable to railway companies. Railway companies are permitted by Parliament to use what are, ex hypothesi, dangerous instruments, namely, railway engines— dangerous in so far as they are liable to emit sparks. Legislative authority has permitted them to be used. In their nature they are dangerous to those who have agricultural produce on land adjoining a railway.
Therefore, it is not the fact that Parliament has authorised something which can be used with or without negligence, but that Parliament has authorised something to be used which in in itself
dangerous to the country through which it passes, though, of course, much less dangerous now than it was before some of the devices in use to-day were introduced. Parliament authorised that because it is on the whole a benefit to the community that these great engines should traverse the land. When fires first took place railway companies were sued in respect of them, but, in accordance with a very well known legal principle, if you are using statutory powers in a proper way you cannot be made liable for the consequence of the use of those powers. The railway companies were acquitted except in cases where it could be shown they were not using the best known devices for preventing damage. It has been suggested that the railway companies are refraining from using the best known devices because if they put one of these devices on the funnel of an engine, or any other part of an engine from which sparks are emitted, they will be held liable. If there is any device known, whether fitted to single engines or not, it is the easiest possible thing to prove in a court of law that the railway company has been guilty of negligence, and it will not affect the question of whether the device has been fitted to one engine or to no engine. All that is necessary is to call some gentleman to prove that there is such a device in existence, and that the railway companies have not availed themselves of it. Then it would be held, as it has been held in numbers of cases, that the railway company was not using its statutory powers reasonably.
That is sufficient to show that this is not altogether a question of such negligence as my hon. and gallant Friend the Seconder of the Motion suggested. He said it would be necessary to trace out the engine driver and to prove that he had operated the engine negligently. That might be one way of proving negligence, but all that is necessary is to prove that the proper devices are not being used. It is said that it would be difficult for an individual to do this, but in these days of associations who fight all cases of this sort, it is not exactly the fact that an individual is powerless against powerful railway companies. Individuals in these days have associations and unions to protect them and assert their right. It is not right that railway companies, having been authorised by Statute
to use their lines in the manner approved by Parliament, should be penalised on the grounds put forward in this Bill. The Act of 1905 was a concession by the railway companies. On what ground is it sought to extend that concession? People know that when they take a farm or purchase land near the railway, they receive the benefit attaching to contiguity to the railway, as well as the disadvantages attaching to the risk of fire. A farm which is five miles from the railway, necessitating long haulage, is not so attractive as a farm adjoining a railway station. If people take the benefits they must also take the burdens. It may be said that a farmer who has a farm between two stations, and a distance from both, is not affected on that ground, but, at the same time, in a great many cases, nearness to the railway is a great advantage, and, broadly speaking, a farm which is near the railway is, except in some districts, favourably situated as far as transport is concerned.
The Bill rests upon a fallacy. To suggest that because the price of produce has risen, say, from £100 to £200, the Act of 1905 should be amended, is a fallacy. Supposing a man has damage done to a field of three or four acres, that the whole field is swept by fire, as sometimes occurred last summer, he does not get an amount proportioned to that damage. He gets £100 at the present time, irrespective of the total damage done. There is no reason why he should get £200. It is not a question of getting compensation for a certain bulk, and it cannot be suggested that because the bulk destroyed was once worth £100, but is now worth £200, that he should now receive £200. The principle of the Act of 1905 was that the small man should get a small amount of the damage to the extent to which the railway companies were prepared to accede. That was fixed at £100, a purely arbitrary figure, and therefore it is not a question of valuing a bulk or a certain weight of produce or of timber or of anything else, but of giving the man an arbitrary sum. The railway companies were prepared to pay £100 to avoid disputes in this matter, and therefore the arguments as to the increased value of produce are not altogether relevant.

Mr. TOWNLEY: What about the railway rates?

Mr. INSKIP: It is quite true that railway rates have been increased, but I do not think they were increased for this purpose. They were increased because other expenses have gone up. If we once begin to amend all the Acts of Parliament before 1914 which mention sums of money, and to double those sums, Parliament will have plenty of work before it. On these grounds, I venture to think the Bill is unnecessary, and is at the same time unfair to the railway companies and will not encourage them to give concessions in future on the lines suggested by the hon. and gallant Member for Hulme (Lieut.-Colonel Nail), and I suggest it should not get a Second Reading.

Mr. FOOT: I rise to support the Second Reading of this Measure. Had I any doubt about supporting the Measure, I should be induced to take that course by the arguments of those who oppose it. On the one hand we were asked by the hon. Member for Hulme to consider the misfortunes of the railway companies and the hardships caused to them, while the hon. Member for Richmond (Mr. Murrough Wilson) took care to explain that out of the 400 claims made against the railway companies last year 70 per cent, were under £25. On the one hand, we are told the railway companies will have to pay an additional burden, and on the other hand that the damage done to the farms is so small as to be almost negligible. I do not think we ought to consider the "unfortunate body" of the railway companies, but rather the luckless smallholder whose holding happens to be contiguous with the railway line. This was described by the Mover as a small Measure. It is a small measure of justice and I agree with the right hon. Member for Norwich (Mr. G. Roberts) that even if in the course of the year only half a dozen cases arose where this Measure would come into operation, for the sake of those six cases it would be worth while passing the Bill. It may involve some unfortunate smallholder in utter ruin. I think I may even rely on the argument of the hon. Member who said that in the end the community had to pay. Is it not fair that the community should pay? The railways are run for the advantage of the whole community, and the community ought to bear the occasional loss that does arise from the destruction of crops. That ought not to
fall upon the unfortunate farmer or smallholder. Though a trifling burden on the shoulders of the community, it would be a crushing burden to fall upon one man. It is because this Measure is a measure of justice to the small man and the individual as against the community that I support the Second Reading.

Lieut.-Colonel WHELER: I want to support the Second Reading of the Bill. It may be of interest to say that when the £100 limit was fixed the price of wheat was 26s. a quarter, and even though the price of wheat is double that to-day, most people know that it does not pay to grow it; therefore anything that hinders the development of corn growing is going to be a serious handicap to the production of food. Whatever may be said from the point of view of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip), who spoke from the legal standpoint, it is far more essential to come to the realities of the situation and to realise the difficulties of farmers, and to note that this is a small Bill brought forward to help them at a time when they want all the help they can get. This Bill has the approval of every farmers' association and is commended throughout the length and breadth of the rural community. Things have been said to-day which make one think that the realities of the situation are not always appreciated. My hon. and learned Friend talked about a farmer going to the High Court, and so on. Those of us who live in rural districts know that the last thing the farmer wants is to go into the High Court; it is not the nature of the farmer to do that sort of thing. He would prefer to get a settlement made in the locality, through some arrangement put through by the local stationmaster, in a commonsense way, rather than go to a High Court, even though he has an association to work with.
There is another factor—those who are interested in railway companies will correct me if I am wrong—which is that one now sees bigger and bigger engines, drawing heavier and longer trains, and where they are going up inclines, and the steam pressure has to be greater, the danger of sparks coming out is not a diminishing one. To come back to the value of agricultural produce, my hon. and gallant Friend who seconded the Bill (Captain Bowyer) gave figures with
reference to crops which I do not think were altogether correct. What we are all trying to do is to get a larger bulk per acre, to make the land more fertile and to produce more quarters of corn per acre, and that point has not been considered. The argument which has been put forward that a farmer alongside a railway gets any benefit from the railway does not always hold. There may be something in the argument if he happens to have bought his land close to a railway station, but there are miles and miles of railway running through farm land far from any station at all, and farmers there may be seriously injured, especially if the land happens to lie near an incline, without deriving any benefit from the contiguity of the line. This is a commonsense Bill brought in to deal with an acute problem in agriculture. I see the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has now arrived in his place. I know him to be a keen farmer and greatly interested in agriculture, for I have had many talks with him on the difficulties of the land, and the burdens of the land, and we shall see to-day if he is prepared to do something for those people with whom ho works and whom he has an interest in. I should not like to make a forecast, but I think he must be rather torn in his feelings about this Bill. I hope, however, that he will give agriculture his support, and that in these times of difficulty which we have to face he will be prepared to recommend to every director of the railways that this Bill should be supported in every possible way.

Sir F. BANBURY: No.

Mr. REMER: I also desire to add a word in support of the Bill and to say a word on the speech of the hon. and learned Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip). He delivered a long legal argument, which I should not feel competent to follow, but it showed that the railway companies were subject to no penalty, because they were running through the land under statutory powers. It is quite clear they are only running with statutory powers subject to penalties which Parliament has provided. It is most reasonable in the difficult circumstances facing agriculture at the present time—it is almost vital to agriculture—that the situation under this Bill should be put on a fairer
basis. I could not follow the argument of the hon. and learned Gentleman when he said that the penalty of £100 agreed upon in 1905 was not a penalty bearing any ratio to the value of the crops which were destroyed. That seems to be an utterly absurd and ridiculous argument. I could not understand it, and I could not follow it. Surely if the damage is twice as much to-day, compensation should be paid at an increased rate. Small people who, he says, are banded together in unions and associations may be able to put their case forward, but every business man in the country, however big and however important he may be, knows the difficulty of fighting a railway company, or any other big corporation. It is a very serious task; no business man would undertake litigation against a railway company unless he were pretty sure of his point, and pretty certain that he was going to succeed. I suggest that the railway companies should look upon this with a lenient eye to-day and should not come here to-day opposing this Bill. We in this House know that a Bill is coming before the House on Monday in which they are asking for great powers, and I do not think it is wise for them to come here to-day threatening the small agricultural interests with opposition to this Bill, which may mean that there will be opposition inflicted upon them on the Bill which is coming forward on Monday night. There is a great difference also which has arisen since the 1905 Act was passed. The hon. Member for Bodmin (Mr. Foot) mentioned the case of smallholders. There is also the case of allotment holders. Their case does press for the more sympathetic consideration which this Bill asks the House to confer. For these and other reasons, I desire to say that my support will be given in favour of the Bill.

Sir F. BANBURY: The hon. Member who has just sat down has advanced very curious reasons for the acceptance of the Second Reading of this Bill. First of all, he says the House must remember that the agricultural industry is in a very difficult position to-day, which is absolutely true. Why should the railway companies be chosen to put it in a better position? Why does not the hon. Member come forward and, out of his own pocket, help to put agriculture in a better position? Does the hon. Gentleman really suppose that the Bill is going to do any
good to agriculture as a whole? Of course it will do no such thing. Agriculture, as a whole, is in a bad position, and if the hon. Gentleman would support me in putting a duty on the import of wheat and corn and other products of agriculture, then I would agree with him. But I am afraid the hon. Gentleman is doing what is a very common thing— being generous with other people's money, and as he thinks that the railway companies are people who are easily shot at, it will be a very good thing to see if he cannot get something out of the pockets of the unfortunate shareholders who, I beg to remind him, have not participated in the profits which manufacturers and traders made during the War, but have been obliged to be content, not only with not a larger dividend, but, many cases, with a smaller dividend than they had before the War. When he talks about allotment holders and smallholders do not let him forget that the vast majority of railway shareholders consist of people holding £400 or £500 of stock.
Then the hon. Gentleman says, "Ah! do not let the railway companies be foolish. Some of them, not all of them, are going to have a Bill on Monday, and if they object to this Bill to-day, we shall object to the Bill on Monday. "What an argument! It is not a case of whether the thing is right or wrong, but because the hon. Gentleman thinks he may put on a little pressure, he says the Bill on Monday may be objected to. Blackmail!

Mr. REMER: I did not say I was going to do that. I said somebody might do that.

Sir F. BANBURY: That is rather like the old saying, "Don't nail his ears to the pump. "What the hon. Gentleman would do himself I do not know, but what he said was evidently an inducement to other Members to follow the bad advice he was prepared to give to the House. If he came down to my private house and said to me, "Unless you do so and so, I shall exact a penalty from you," and I rang the bell and telephoned for the police, he would be arrested and brought before a court of law for endeavouring to obtain money by threats. Therefore, I hope the hon. Gentleman will think better of the advice which he gave a short time ago to the House.
2.0 P.M
I remember perfectly well the Bill of 1905. What is the true position with
regard to the railway companies. Do not let the House be under any misapprehension. When the railway companies were started they had to buy the land, and they bought it for a specific purpose. That purpose was to run trains drawn by steam engines over that land. The landlords took very good care to obtain a very good price for the land—more than they would have obtained in the ordinary course—because it was thought that considerable danger would be involved by having trains running over the land. Having bought the land for the express purpose of running trains over it drawn by steam locomotives, and having to pay a much larger price than they would have got it for for agricultural purposes, they are now told they must pay an additional sum. Was anything more unreasonable ever put before any House of Commons in any country in the world? What is the remedy for the tenant farmer? It is this. He should say to the landlord, "I have got a farm, and part of that farm runs along the railway. There is a certain risk attached to it in a dry season. You or your predecessors obtained a very considerable sum of money for the land. You have sold it to the railway company, therefore you can afford to let my farm rather cheaper because it has certain disadvantages under these circumstances." There is no question that a farm adjoining the railway has certain disadvantages, unless there is a station, which would give the farmer a very great advantage.
Those are arguments which I cannot think any reasonable man, who divests his mind of prejudice, can possibly oppose. My hon. Friend is mistaken if he thinks the damage done now costs twice as much as it did in 1905. Does he mean to tell me the price of oats or wheat at the present moment is twice now what it was in 1905? Of course, he knows it is not. He knows that cereals, to say nothing of other things, are rapidly coming down to the prices of 1905, and does he propose, if they come down to those prices, that there should be a Clause inserted in this Bill reducing the limit back to £100? Because unless ho does, then his argument that, because prices have increased, this amount ought to be increased falls to the ground. But, like everything else connected with this Bill, the people who have brought it forward want to have everything their
own way, and to have their cake and eat it, too. I do not think the House in 1905 would have disputed the argument? have advanced, but there was a sort of appeal ad misericordiam, and it was agreed that for a distance of 100 yards from the line the railway company should be liable in every instance for fires, not exceeding £100 for each fire. What is the actual result? Last year was the worst year, from the point of view of railway companies, that has existed since 1905, owing, as the House knows, to the extremely dry season, which made it extremely difficult to stop fires, and when a small fire did occur, it naturally spread. Take the figures of claims made against the Great Northern Railway Company. There were 478 claims settled in the year, and they worked out as follows: 335 under £25; 70 over £25 and under £50; 34 over £50 and under £75; 14 over £75 and under £100; and, out of the 478, only 25, or 5 per cent., above £100. That shows the absurdity of making this alteration. In all probability the Great Northern Railway was a larger sufferer than other railways except the London and South-Western, which runs through even a drier district, but we may take it that this is, more or less, the experience of all the companies.
The next point is that the time for making a claim is to be extended from seven to 14 days. Why? A farmer, especially a small farmer, knows perfectly well whether a fire has occurred or not, and if you are going to wait 14 days, how on earth can the railway companies check whether the fire really occurred, owing to their sparks, or whether it occurred from some other reason? Last year was a very bad year for all spring corn. If an agricultural labourer dropped a match and set fire to a bad crop the farmer might say, "I am not sure what did it; it might have been a spark from an engine, and I will put in a claim on the chance. "That is not impossible, and, therefore, I think the extension of the seven days to 14 is even worse than the extension of the £100 to £200. After all it is easy for the farmer to deliver a letter informing the station-master that a fire has occurred on such a date, or to spend 2d. in writing a letter to the head office of the railway company informing them. So that I do not see any necessity whatever for the extension of time from seven days to 14, unless it be
with the object of allowing claims more or less fictitious to be brought forward, because it is not an easy matter always to ascertain how a fire arose. Many fires have occurred—I do not say for a moment through incendiarism—but you do not know how they did occur, and therefore to extend the period to 14 days seems absolutely absurd, and the same applies to the time for delivery of particulars being extended from 14 days to 21.
In view of the enormous burdens that are put upon the railway companies at the present time, and in view of the fact that a Bill of this sort is certain to encourage litigation without remedying any evil, there is no need for the Bill. I have proved that in the driest year we have had within the memory possibly of anybody in this House that, in connection with one of the largest railways, over 5 per cent, of the claims have been over £100. In this world you have nothing perfect. Whatever legislation take place must have its defects in one way or another, and as against one person or another. Here you are going to alter the law for the sake of 5 per cent, of cases which arise, and that seems to me to be absolutely ridiculous. It does not follow that this 5 per cent. of claims is all that have been settled. The companies endeavour, although I am not certain whether I quite agree, to keep out of the Law Courts, because, unfortunately, juries generally take the same view as my hon. Friend opposite, though in a different way. They consider the railway company is rich. That is not true; I wish it were! But the juries say, "Oh, it is the railway company, it will not make a great deal of difference to them; it will not hurt them, let us give damages, they will do some poor man good. "I think I have advanced reasons sufficient to induce the House to throw out this Bill. There is no need for it. It may inflict certain injustices on the companies and it may add to litigation.

The MINISTER of AGRICULTURE (Sir Arthur Boscawen): The Government place this matter in the hands of the House to decide, and, therefore, in the few words I shall utter, I am not speaking officially, though, so far as personally I am concerned, I support the Bill. We have just heard a most entertaining speech from the right hon. Baronet the
Member for the City (Sir F. Banbury), who told us he was a landlord, which is not now a popular thing. It is, however, becoming more popular, I think. He has adopted the more popular calling of a chairman of the railway company. It would have been very much better if he had spoken from the point of view of a landlord or a farmer, for his audience to-day are not likely to help him to throw out this Bill. What did he tell us? He said the Bill was quite unnecessary, because the great majority of claims against the railway company were less than £100. What follows from that? That the damage or harm which is likely to be done to the railway company is infinitesimally small! He suggested that the railway companies may have in a way to make good any deficiency in the farmers' income, but nobody thinks that this little Bill is going to cure agricultural depression. Nobody suggests that it is going to have any big or general effect at all. What is it going to do? I believe it would provide a remedy where one is needed for certain individuals. On this ground I think it ought to be supported. The right hon. Baronet said that 5 per cent, of the claims were over £100.

Sir F. BANBURY: In the case of one particular railway.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: Which runs through a dry district! And in the case of his own railway, the right hon. Baronet says only 5 per cent, of the claims will be affected by this Bill. I put it to him, therefore, that the effect of this Bill upon the dividends to his shareholders and the general prosperity of the railway will be practically nil. On the other hand, those individuals who have had these claims would receive compensation. They are smallholders, small farmers and, maybe, some of the ex-service men whom we have, recently placed on the land. In the case of the latter, justice merely would be done. My right hon. Friend made another remarkable statement. He said that when the railways were originally constructed the landowners sold land to the railway companies and that, therefore, the railway companies on their part had the right to send their engines throughout the country, doing what damage they liked In other words, they had the full right to run trains, and he justified his position on this ground that, the landowners having got a good
"whack" out of the railway companies, the companies were for ever entitled to do this damage.

Sir F. BANBURY: I did not say that. What I was endeavouring to suggest was the difference between the present proposal and the previous Bill. Negligence on the part of the railway companies may be proved notwithstanding that the railway companies have taken every human precaution to prevent conflagrations.

Sir A. BOSCAWEN: I quite understand that point. It is that the right hon. Gentleman thinks that, in view of the fact that the landowners invested large sums in the companies, the companies have a right to run their trains doing damage—as he himself admitted— and that unless you could prove there was really culpable negligence the claim should not hold! That I believe to be a correct statement; but my right hon. Friend overlooked the difficulty on the part of the individual farmer to prove culpable negligence. Farmers as a rule have not got legal advice handy, and, again, it is a difficult question to say what is negligence in this matter. Is it negligence if a railway company has not adopted some device to prevent the emission of sparks? Is it negligence if the drivers stoke up their engines at certain particularly dry places where the damage to the crops is likely to be great? It must be obvious to the House that to prove negligence is a very difficult matter. Therefore, in 1905, to meet this demand, what I consider was a fair compromise was arranged. It was laid down when the Act was passed that up to £100 compensation should be given without the necessity of proof of negligence. Everybody realises, as has already been pointed out more than once, that the value of money has entirely changed since 1905, and if £100 was fair then there seems to be a primâ facie case for looking into the matter now, to see whether a rather higher limit ought not to be imposed on the present occasion. Therefore, in my humble judgment, the House would be well advised to give this Bill a Second Reading. The matter could then be fully discussed before the Standing Committee.
I am not for a moment saying that I would like to commit myself to a limit of £200 because £100 was right in 1905. The value of money has changed. We should
not now enact another permanent Measure fixing the amount at £200 for all time. The value of money is fluctuating, and in a few years' time it may be what it was in 1905. Again, another matter which the Committee might take into consideration is whether this charge should be a permanent one or a temporary one to meet the temporary fluctuations in the value of money. In any case, it does seem to me that this Bill aims at remedying a small injustice, which I admit may be a large one in individual cases, and it falls upon certain individuals. The cost to the railway companies would be small, and therefore I think the House would be well advised to give this Measure a Second Reading.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: There is an ancient saying that when thieves fall out honest men come by their own. I cannot help thinking that at first sight this Bill gives an apt illustration of that maxim, because the landlords and the railway directors are not in agreement.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am in agreement, and I am both.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I think the whole House observed the struggle that was going on in the right hon. Gentleman's mind on this point.

Sir F. BANBURY: There was no struggle. I only want to do the right thing.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The right hon. Gentleman is interested both ways, and yet he opposes the Bill. On the whole, I have come to the conclusion that this is not really a question between the landlords and the railway companies. If I remember rightly, we passed last year the Railways Act, which established the fact that railway companies were allowed to keep their freight rates and their fares high until it could be shown that their profits were excessive.

Sir F. BANBURY: That is not right. The railway companies were supposed to be allowed to keep up their rates and charges, provided they did not exceed the dividend of 1913, and if they did, 80 per cent, was to be given to the traders and 20 per cent, to the revenue.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is a perfectly accurate statement. This is not
really a question between the railway companies and the landlords, but between the landlords and the traders, as to who should get the benefit of any surplus profits. This Bill will pro tanto affect the profits of the railway companies. This is really a question between the landlords on the one hand and the community on the other, and they are both interested in this Bill.
We have just had a very valuable admission from the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London. He made it quite clear that when railway companies were started they paid a fancy price for the agricultural land they bought. I always thought that that was blackmail in order to get the Bill promoted by the railway companies through the House of Commons, but that evidently was not so. When they paid extortionate prices for agricultural land for their railways it was not merely for the acquisition of the land, but it was also for the acquisition of the right to run railway lines through the land. We have now had explained what has always been obscure as to why these prices were paid. The railway companies have always been saddled with these high prices, and the traders are paying for them. The reason given was that these engines should be allowed to run through the peaceful country side scattering sparks right and left. In any case there was a bargain struck, It was not really the sale of so much land for grazing cattle, but it was for putting railways on the land. For landlords to come down here, drawing long faces, and relating pitiful stories about the destruction wrought by these wicked engines seems to me to be unfair, because the bargain they drove was a pretty hard one. They made their bed and now they should lie upon it.

Mr. STURROCK: This is not a matter affecting only the railway companies and the agriculturists. We are getting here too much into the habit of allowing these matters to be debated without any consideration whatsoever being given to the interests of the community and the consumer. Looking at the proposals in this Measure quite dispassionately, I say that there are many interests in the country which ought to come before the smallholders and those other interests which have been mentioned. There are other sections of the community who must have consideration before we begin increasing
compensation to any particular group who may think they are going to be affected by the damage done by railways. What about all the people who have to travel? What about impecunious Scottish Members who have to pay now double the pre-War railway fare every time they go to their constituencies 1 Are they going to have any consideration from the Minister of Agriculture? The right hon. Gentleman is dealing with the problem of compensation to farmers and smallholders in exactly the same spirit in which he has been handling the important problem of Canadian store cattle. He has been dealing with this matter as if it were a question which only affected the agriculturists of this country and no other section of the community. I maintain that that, again, is a problem for the consumer of the home-grown butchers' meat, and, on that ground, I have challenged the decision. Here, again, to-day he says that the sparks which have cause so much discussion this afternoon— [HON.MBMBKRS: "Divide!"]—I am sorry that those who affect to believe in independent Liberalism should wish to avoid discussion of an important Measure, but I shall not be diverted from my argument. The Minister of Agriculture pictured the woes of the smallholder, who might conceivably be nearly ruined by sparks falling among his crops. The smallholder has suffered these dangers all along, and he has been compensated under the Act of 1905.

Mr. KILEY: He insures against them.

Mr. STURROCK: I listened to my hon. Friend who introduced the Bill and to the Seconder, but I failed to discover that they had any substantial reason for proposing any alteration in the law at the present juncture. The right hon. Baronet the Member for the Ctiy of London (Sir F. Banbury) took up a very interesting point with reference to the amount which the landlords have already got out of the railway companies. Some of my hon. Friends opposite, I know, hold very strong views as to the amount of money which the landlords wore able to extort from the railway companies when new lines were being developed in all parts of the country. I can take hon. Members to a little line running through a portion of Scotland which covers far more agricultural land than it need necessarily have done, for the simple reason that the land-
lords in that part of the country thought that their mansions were going to be spoiled if the railway came too near. Consequently, in Perthshire you have the line twisting and turning through most valuable agricultural land because the landlords in those days hated the railways as they hate motor traffic to-day. The railways had to pay fancy prices for the right of going over that land, but I have to pay extra for every mile I travel because of the demands of the railway companies. I think my hon. Friend realises that when he comes down here with a Bill of this sort he is not very easily going to get the support of people who are interested, not in agriculture, but in the rights of large masses of people in industrial areas, whose rights ought to come before the supposed grievances of any particular section of the community

Mr. TOWNLEY: Is it a right of the railway companies to set fire to property on the side of their line?

Mr. STURROCK: Of course it is not a right.

Mr. KILEY: We cannot hear a word you say.

Mr. STURROCK: I am sorry. I was replying to my hon. Friend. My hon. Friend said that it is not a right of the railway companies to burn crops, but my hon. Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip) has explained the law on that point. You will have accidents happen whether from sparks or in other ways, and damage will be done, but that is no reason why on a Friday afternoon the Legislature should suddenly be asked to pass a Measure which is going exactly to double the burden put on the railway companies. It has been represented that this is a very little thing and that it is not going to affect railway dividends or anyone, and we are told not to worry about it, but to do this justice to a very deserving class, some of whom have fought on the field of battle. All honour to them, but there are hundreds of thousands of other men who fought as strenuously in all theatres or war, and they are going to be penalised, at any rate, to some extent, for the benefit of the very few. I do not think that is the sort of principle which we ought to introduce here. Someone has got to pay this money and, knowing the right hon. Baronet the Member for the
City of London and other railway directors, I guarantee that in the end it will be the railway travellers. We are all railway travellers, and we ought to oppose this Bill. On the whole, there is far too much tendency in the Legislature to treat agriculture as a spoilt child. It is always getting some concession and, when agriculture is mentioned, Members representing agricultural constituencies always become almost lachrymose. You find influences of it in the most unusual and most unexpected quarters.
Nowadays, I live under a strong feeling that is constantly being pressed upon me that, as a Liberal, I am suspect in certain quarters of the House. I read a great deal about the return of one of the impeccable few the other day from a Division called Bodmin (Mr. Foot), and I thought that now we should hear something of these pure and undiluted principles of Liberalism which I am always trying to discover but never hear anything about from the benches opposite. I find, however, that he is in favour of this class legislation. He has in his constituency a few smallholders with holdings near the railway line, and therefore he has made it his business to tell the House that they ought to have compensation out of the funds of the whole community. I welcome this early opportunity of the appearance of the hon. Member for Bodmin to tell him that, having been nurtured in pure Glad-stonianism, I do not think it is any part of the business of an undiluted Liberal like himself or myself to come down here and argue on a Friday afternoon for a Measure which is purely sectional and very much class legislation.

Dr. MURRAY: Is that your peroration?

Mr. STURROCK: No. I would not like to deny my hon. Friend the pleasure of listening to me for so long as he is disposed to remain in his place. I have enumerated a few of the reasons why I oppose this Measure. There is in Scotland a scheme for the electrification of the Highland Railway. That, it seems to me, will dispose of the sparks and all the trouble connected therewith, much more effectively than any Measure which can be brought forward in this House.
For my part, I sincerely hope that that electrification may be carried out to cover all the areas as soon as possible as far as the Western Isles, so that my hon. Friend opposite, who is vitally interested in the matter, will also be able to enjoy some of the fruits of this great benevolent scheme. I think I have finished. We have to recognise that this Bill, although its scope may appear to be limited, nevertheless contains an important principle. It provides that a section of the community shall draw compensation from the great mass of the people of this country. I trust that my hon. Friends will give thought to all the arguments which have been advanced against the Bill, and that they will not press it to a Division which might cause it to be assumed that some of us are opposed to agriculture. I have endeavoured to make it clear that my sympathies are with the legitimate demands of agriculture, but when it comes to the point of asking us to pass this for the advantage of agriculture, then I would urge that there are others equally needing assistance. It should be borne in mind that the travelling public and the traders are among the classes which ought to have consideration, and ought to get relief from the pressing burden which this Bill would impose by means of the votes of travelling Members of Parliament.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: I think the speech to which we have just listened shows that the hon. Member has greater interest in the Bill down next for discussion than in this particular Measure. I would remind him that he will have plenty of opportunity later on for dealing with that. I think it is a pity he should have taken up such a long time to-day. It has been represented by the opponents of this Measure that it is intended to put an additional burden on the railways and on the public generally, but the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) has shown that this particular burden is absolutely insignificant. If evidence were required of that it is to be found in the fact that the right hon. Gentleman himself was late for this Debate. I never knew him, when a railway Bill was down on the Order Paper, to be late, and I think we are entitled to* assume that his late arrival proves that here there is not very much
at stake as far as the railways are concerned.

Sir F. BANBURY: If the hon. and gallant Gentleman wants to know why I was late, I may tell him that a railway company of which I am chairman had a very important board meeting to-day, and I came down here as soon as it was over.

Major WOOD: Evidently the right hon. Baronet was dealing with matters of greater interest to the railway companies than this Bill. It seems to me that the object of this Bill is not so much to provide the farmers or smallholders or anyone else with compensation as it is to try and stop these fires taking place and thereby to protect our food supplies. Who is it that can stop the fires? It is the railway companies. The farmers and the smallholders cannot do it. Experience has shown that the number of these fires has tended to increase in recent years, therefore it is highly desirable in the public interest that some additional pressure should be put on the railways to stop them. They, alone, as I have said, are the people who can do that. They certainly could do something more than they have done in the past to put spark-preventers on their engines and to give better notice to tenants of lands adjoining their lines when they have started fires, so that the damage may be minimised as much as possible. The Scottish Farmers' Union have considered this Bill, and, although they do not look upon it as wholly satisfactory, they do believe it is a step in the right direction. I therefore ask hon. Members of the House to support it in the interests of agriculture.

Major MOLSON: Like the last speaker, I have been requested by the Farmers' Union, in Lincolnshire, to support this Bill. I think it is a perfectly reasonable proposal. I do not wish to put any extra burden on the railway companies, but I do think that the grant of a little increased compensation would tend to make the companies more careful, and induce them also to investigate measures for preventing sparks from their engines damaging the countryside. I have seen in Canada the enormous damage done to a whole countryside through mere carelessness, and I think that in this more highly cultivated country we ought to insist on great care in this respect. It
has been admitted that the question of compensation is a comparatively small matter so far as the railway companies are concerned. I believe the passing of this Bill would remove a great feeling of injustice now entertained by the farmers of this country, and for these reasons I shall vote in favour of the Measure.

Captain EVANS: It is with considerable misgiving that I have listened to the Debate. I should have thought that a Bill of this character could have passed through the House with practically no discussion, but I have rather gathered that some of the speakers have been occupying the time because they do not want to have to talk on the next Bill which is to come on for discussion. I have been considerably relieved of that fear by the fact that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Major M. Wood), who naturally desires to express his views and to give his vote on the next Bill on the Order Paper, has also felt it incumbent upon him to take part in this discussion. I am afraid some of the remarks which have been made have rather blinded the House to the real facts which have given rise to this Bill. We listened to a very interesting disquisition by the right hon. Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) upon the history of the way in which railway companies acquired land in order to construct their lines, and I think everybody will agree that the railway companies probably did have to pay excessive prices for the land which they acquired. But it is rather difficult to believe that the railway companies have not by this time set their finances sufficiently in order to have recovered and recouped themselves for that excessive price from those who use the railway, either as passengers or as senders of goods, because the right hon. Baronet, I am quite sure, will not deny that neither his company nor the other companies are philanthropic institutions. It is true they perform a great service to the country, but they demand a certain amount of compensation for that service. I would like to remind the right hon. Baronet that what we are discussing to-day is a small Amendment to a Bill which was passed at a time when his own party were in office. I do not know what attitude the right hon. Gentleman took up towards the Bill of 1905.

Sir F. BANBURY: I opposed it.

Captain EVANS: Then he was a Diehard in 1905, and he did what everybody probably imagined he had done. He opposed that Bill, as he has opposed so many others, and as we all hope he may live long to oppose many more. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip) gave a clear enunciation of the principles on which railway companies are liable for negligence, but that really is not relevant to the discussion of this Bill. It is quite true that where a man can establish negligence against a railway company he can recover damages, but we all know that there are many cases where farmers suffer, not from the negligence of the railway companies, but from the action or, perhaps, even the accidents of railway companies, and it is well known that there is nothing which may perhaps cause a farmer, and particularly a small farmer, greater damage than a small spark from an engine when it sets fire to his crops. We are not here discussing the principle. The principle was accepted in the 1905 Act, and all that we are discussing to-day is two small Amendments on matters of detail. The first is with regard to the notice which shall be given to a railway company by a farmer whose property has been damaged by a spark. The right hon. Baronet said that 14 days was too long, but let him consider the position with which many of us are acquainted, of the farmers who live in remote country districts. They probably do not know of the Act of 1905, and I do not suppose they will know of this Bill when it becomes an Act, but it does not follow that it is not important to them, any more than it does not follow that it was not important to the right hon. Baronet because he did not come down until after his meeting with his directors, and for all I know this very Bill was perhaps under discussion.

Sir F. BANBURY: No, it was not.

3.0 P.M.

Captain EVANS: Then I imagine that the Great Northern Railway Company did not consider that it was a measure of such a revolutionary character that it was necessary to discuss it at a directors' board meeting. The farmers in the country districts will probably not be acquainted with the provisions of this Bill, as I was saying, and therefore it is necessary for them, when their property
is damaged by fire, to consult a solicitor. In many parts of the country a farmer will go into the nearest town only once a week, or perhaps once a fortnight, or even once a month. Solicitors, like railway companies, are not philanthropists. They expect to be remunerated for their services. They therefore do not have offices in remote rural districts, but in the towns, and I can conceive of many occasions on which a farmer would not, perhaps, have the opportunity of consulting a solicitor for a period of 14 days. Therefore, I do not think it unfair to extend this period from seven days to 14 days, as is proposed. After all, it is very few landlords of whom it can be said that their tenants all have motor cars, as the right hon. Baronet is able proudly to claim for the tenants on his estates. It is a matter of great interest for all of us to observe the attitude taken up by the right hon. Baronet, who combines in himself not only the position of a railway director and a landlord, but also, I understand, that of a pretty considerable farmer. Apparently, as a landlord, he does not own a motor car. I do not know whether as a railway director he requires one, and it would be interesting to know whether his own landlords are as good to him as he is to his tenants, and whether as a tenant he possesses a motor ear. We all know that, generally speaking, smallholders and small farmers in the country districts certainly do not possess motor cars, and therefore it is not unreasonable to give them an opportunity of considering the matter under discussion for 14 days.
The other small Amendment proposed is with regard to the amount which can be recovered. It is proposed to make it £200 instead of £100. I agree with the right hon. Baronet that it is not very relevant to this discussion to discuss the question of the price of oats and wheat at the present time. The figure of £100 was decided upon in 1905, not in relation to the damage which might be sustained by farmers, but it was taken as an arbitrary figure. To-day all that we are asking is to make it £200, and I think there is good ground for that, and there would certainly not be much harm done to the railway companies, because, as the right hon. Baronet said, in only 5 per cent, of the cases was the amount claimed over £100. In view of that fact I cannot see that by passing this Bill we shall be heaping upon
the railway companies or upon the community at large that great measure of disaster and of considerably heavier burdens which has been so gloomily prophesied by one or two hon. Members who have spoken to-day. It seems to me that they are perfectly reasonable Amendments in view of the circumstances in which we live. The industry of agriculture is probably more depressed than any other industry at the present time, and the small farmer is certainly suffering, and when it may be possible, as it is, for the small farmer to be deprived of the whole of his capital by a spark from an engine, it is not too much for us to give him this small measure of justice.

Lieut.-Colonel HENDERSON: The right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) made a very interesting speech, and my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Aberdeen (Major M. Wood) suggested that the right hon. Baronet came down to the House at a later period than he usually does. The House will agree that the right hon. Gentleman gave a most emphatic explanation, but I cannot help thinking that the right hon. Baronet's appearance in the House at a rather later hour than usual may have been affected to some extent by the fact that on his way here he was perhaps having a great conflict with himself to decide which part of him, that part which is landlord or that part which is railway director, should have the victory. That may possibly account for his late appearance. The point I want to make is this, that I cannot understand, after listening to the right hon. Gentleman's speech, why the part which' is the railway director really won the day, because his speech was really as much for the Bill as against the Bill, for after telling us that he did not consider it was a good Bill, he told us that the total number of claims over £100 was only 5 per cent.

Sir F. BANBURY: In this company.

Lieut.-Colonel HENDERSON: In this company, as the right hon. Baronet says; but I think he will probably agree that it is more or less typical of other railway companies.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: No!

Lieut.-Colonel HENDERSON: I think the right hon. Baronet will probably
accept that. He gave some figures as to the total number of claims, which, I think, was 475, and, taking that on a 5 per cent, basis, we find that the maximum total of the claims against his company last year, if this Bill had been in force, would have been £2,500, which is not, so far as the working of a railway company is concerned—

Sir F. BANBURY: There were 25 claims over £100, and, if my hon. and gallant Friend doubles the £100 and makes it £200, and multiplies the £200 by 25, he will find that it comes to a very much larger amount than he has mentioned.

Lieut.-Colonel HENDERSON: I beg the right hon. Baronet's pardon. He is quite correct; that is the maximum. But what I intended to say was that it is not likely that every one of those claims would be for the full maximum of £200, and one might certainly assume that the average would be somewhere about £2,500 or £3,000. That is not a very serious matter, considering the actual earnings of a large railway company in any one year. The hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Sturrock) proclaimed, on the strength of that, that the rights of the travelling public are being attacked, that the unfortunate ratepayer is again going to suffer, and that, in particular, the Scottish Members, of whom I happen to be one, are going to be put to great disadvantage, which is a natural aspect for a Scottish Member to take up. I do not think that that criticism is entirely justified. I do not think that any claims that are likely to be made against the railway companies in this matter would in any way affect fares, freight rates or dividends. The amount is not large enough in any sense of the term really to affect any of these three items upon which the hon. Member for Montrose based his opposition to this Bill.
I do not think that the Bill is really of that importance which some people attach to it. It is merely a very small Bill which gives to a certain small number of people an act of justice. It is quite true, as the right hon. Baronet says, that the number of actual smallholders or ex-service men now occupying small holdings who would be affected by this alteration of the £100 limit to £200 would be probably infinitesimal, because, from the figures which the right hon. Baronet very kindly
showed me during the Debate, the maximum amount of the claim of any one of these people would probably not exceed £50, having regard to the amount of land that he would hold. The fact that it will not necessarily affect the smallholder, and would affect large landlords, is not, however, an argument against the justice of the Bill, and I, personally, should certainly be prepared to vote for its Second Reading if the hon. Baronet chooses to divide the House. I have spent a good many years in South Africa, and from my experience there I know the enormous damage that can be done by a spark from a railway engine. I also happen at the present time to be a member of the Royal Commission on Fire Prevention, and a very considerable amount of evidence has been laid before us on that particular subject. One of the points brought to our notice quite recently is that the large fire which, as the House will remember, occurred in Hartlepool, where the railway goods yard was destroyed and a large portion of the town was burnt, and where a largo number of railway sleepers belonging to the company were also destroyed in the goods yard, was caused almost certainly by a spark from an engine which was shunting on the line. There is no doubt in my mind that if this Bill, by placing a rather heavier penalty on the railway companies, tends to make them pay rather more attention to the question of the prevention of sparks, then in that direction it will certainly be doing good, because sparks from railway engines not only destroy crops on agricultural land, but many other things as well.
Hartlepool is an interesting example of the kind of damage that can be done in this way. The damage done was very serious because the fire fighting organisation of that particular area was inadequate. With regard to the other provision of the Bill as to extending the date of the claim the right hon. Baronet did not say anything about it. In reference to the proposal to extend the time for sending in claims it is said that farmers greatly dislike writing letters or putting pen to paper. I have heard even that it is a matter of the greatest difficulty to get them to make Income Tax returns. I do not know whether that is true, because I do not represent an agricultural constituency, but I do not think it a sufficient justification for extending the
time for the actual notification of the claim from seven days to 14. It is a different thing to extend the time for sending in a detailed notice to 21 days, but to give a much longer time for notifying claims without any detail may tend to encourage the putting in of claims which may not be justified, and that particular point, I hope, will receive attention when the details of the Bill come to be discussed. But, as regards the general purpose of the Bill, I would like to support it.

Mr. T. A. LEWIS: Almost everything worth saying on this Bill has been said. [HON. MEMBEES:"No!"] A certain proportion of Members who have been present throughout the discussion will also agree with me that a great many of these things have been said more than once. At the same time it does occur to me that there is one aspect of this question which has not yet been touched on, or, if it has, which has not yet been sufficiently emphasised. It seems to me that the effect of this Bill will be, not to penalise the railway shareholder or to be of any considerable advantage to the farmer, but that the immediate and permanent effect will be to give a stimulus to invention and scientific research. In spite of the observations made by the right hon. Baronet and others to the effect that many of us are actuated by not very elegant motives in dealing with railway companies, the plain fact is that neither this Bill nor the Act of 1905 would ever have become necessary had we apparatus to our hands to prevent these sparks. To whatever party we belong, we have all been taught that sparks will fly upwards. I am not sure whether in these advanced days we ought to accept that with complacency, but even if they must fly upwards the complaint made is, not that they fly up but that they come down again.
Should we be unable, with the assistance of science, to prevent them going up, we might, at any rate, do something to prevent them coming down, and if they must come down, cannot we do something to prevent their destructive effect once they reach the fields of the farmer? I make a suggestion in all seriousnesss. Last year we passed a Bill which many of us are beginning to regret having supported. It reduced competition among the railways and gave them a modified monopoly which is already be-
ginning to show its dangers. Monopoly always paralyses initiative and deadens enterprise, and one of the immediate effects of last year's Act will be that railway companies will not devote as much time to scientific research as they have done hitherto. I do not wish to support the Bill in order to penalise railway shareholders, not primarily in order to benefit farmers, though I have a great deal of sympathy with them, but I wish to support the Bill most wholeheartedly because it seem6 to me that one of its first results, and I hope one of its continuing results, will be that it will give a much needed impetus to invention and scientific research.

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: The Debate has been exceptionally interesting, especially to those of us who sit on the Opposition side. We have listened to the exponents of the farmers claim and to the exponents of the railway companies' claim. I am imagining what would happen to the little man with a small plot of land or small property when a railway engine emits sparks on that land or property. I imagine that the legal expenses connected with his claim would be more than the amount he would receive from the company. I am not an expert on the effects of sparks. Knowledge of that subject apparently belongs to the Celtic race, and as a Welshman representing an English constituency I am not quite as conversant with that part of the problem as my hon. Friend who has just spoken. One point has been missed. It has been presumed during the Debate that when a claim for compensation is made it will be made on the railway company and will be met by the railway company. As a matter of fact, the railway company will first of all transfer its liability to the insurance company. One can imagine the process that will be adopted. The claimant will first of all send his notice to the railway company. The railway company will acquaint the insurance company, and the insurance company will come back again to the claimant. Then the circle will go round and round, and in the end, perhaps, the claim will be settled.
There is nothing in the Bill touching the emission of smoke from railway engines. This is a point which requires the attention of the scientists. There is
as much damage done by the emission of black smoke from railway engines, as by the emission of sparks, particularly in a county like Lancashire. Hon. Members who are connected with the railways covering Lancashire ought to take that point into consideration. A Bill like this is absolutely necessary, because I have seen the devastating effects of railway engines emitting sparks and burning up-very rich crops and very valuable property. Some means should be devised to make the railway companies understand, once and for all, that they are not in future to have the monopoly they have had in the past. With due respect to some hon. Gentlemen here, the companies are becoming too audacious by far. They have come to the conclusion that they can do with the community what they like, and if this Bill serves to bring them to their senses, then I shall support it.

Captain LOSEBY: It is with the greatest possible diffidence that I rise to address the House on this question, because I know there are a number of hon. Members who, feeling that a real principle is involved in the Bill, are anxious to speak upon it. I know there are also hon. Members willing to give their views to the House upon other subjects. For instance, my hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley) can scarcely be restrained, and I am sure the House would like to hear from him some of those interesting statistics which he gives us from time to time. I assure him that I, at any rate, will not stand between the House and those interesting figures longer than is necessary. Before I deal with the principle involved in the Bill, I should like to refer briefly to the remarks of the deputy leader of the Labour party. I could not understand why the deputy leader of the Labour party was opposing this Bill, until I discovered he was under the impression that it was the landlords who were to benefit under it. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for New-castle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) is so obsessed with the idea that landlords are the cause of all the evils in this country, that he thinks landlords must be attacked on each and every occasion when he can drag them in. From his own point of view, he is quite wrong in regard to this Bill, because for every
single landlord who will get any benefit under the Bill, there are 99 smallholders.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Name them.

Captain LOSEBY: My hon. and gallant Friend cannot possibly, on this Bill, array the landlords on one side and the community on the other. Next I come to deal most respectfully with the observations of the hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury). He is so notoriously fair in matters between capital and labour, and the House expects such a fair point of view from him, that I find it hard to understand his standpoint in regard to this particular Bill. I cannot help thinking the right hon. Baronet has allowed himself to be biassed by his position as a railway director. [HON. MEMBERS; "Withdraw!"]

Sir F. BANBURY: As far as my personal interests are concerned, they would be the other way, as I happen to be a very large farmer, and that disadvantage will probably remain with me; but it does not follow that I shall always be a railway director.

Captain LOSEBY: I am sure my right hon. Friend will acknowledge that I commenced by saying that his reputation for having an open mind on all questions was well known to the House. But it does seem to me that his point of view on the purely legal aspect is so hard to define that I thought he had allowed himself to be carried away for a moment. If it is not so, I most certainly and willingly withdraw. The first point on this matter is a simple and elementary point. It is the first point that every student of law is taught when he comes to the subject of wrongs between citizens. It is the old and well-known maxim of Sic utere tuo ut alienum non laedas. That may be paraphrased for the lay mind as meaning that any citizen or corporation, whether a railway company or any one else, must so use his own that he does not injure the property of private citizens, and where he is clearly responsible for such injury he must pay the damage. There is a second maxim that also applies, that is, Res ipsa loquitur— that where such a thing as a railway emits sparks, which must of their nature do damage, therefore negligence will be presumed and the person responsible for that damage will pay in exact
proportion to that damage. I utterly fail to understand why a small ex-service man—and I am sure this will appeal to the Members of the Labour party—who may run an omnibus and is unhappily involved in some kind of accident should have to pay to the full for any damage, without any limit—if the machine he was driving was constantly emitting sparks it would not be necessary for people claiming from him to show any kind of negligence—and why a limit of £100 should be put in these cases. Then I do not think the right hon. Baronet is entitled to say the sum is unreasonable. In 1905 it was fixed at £100 and £100 then was the equivalent of £200 to-day. I think this Bill not only embodies a most valuable principle, but is highly logical, and as far as I can see, satisfactory to both parties. If I am unfortunate enough to be a Member of the Committee that deals with this Bill, I shall venture to move an Amendment, not to shorten but to lengthen the time of notice of damage done. It is quite possible to imagine 101 cases in which for one reason or another people neglect to give notice of damage to their property, and I hope the length of notice will be slightly prolonged.

Dr. MURRAY: I am not a railway director. I do not admit the soft impeachment, I am afraid I must admit I have no very direct interest in the matter because the crofts in my constituency are separated from railway sparks by 70 miles of sea. Before the spark travelled that distance I am afraid there would not be much of it left, but as I do not see any Member from the Highlands rising—in fact I am not sure I see any Member from the Highlands present—I think it would be advisable to say one or two things. I am extremely sorry that my hon. Friend the Member for Whitechapel (Mr. Kiley) who was to bring in another Bill, is to be deprived of that pleasure, because 1 should like to see some signs of revolt among the Coalition Liberals corresponding to those shown by the Conservatives. But what brought me into this Debate was the suggestion by my hon. Friend the Member for Pontypridd (Mr. T. A. Lewis) that this Bill will encourage scientific research. The Bill which was to follow this one would also encourage scientific research, and therefore I am speaking for that Bill as well as for this Bill. The Safeguarding of Industries
Act has retarded scientific research. It has been the greatest block to scientific research that we have had for a long time. I could show a reason for that, but I am sure it would be out of order. Therefore I shall confine myself to the present Bill. The country which I come from is not regarded as a dry country. Therefore people might think that sparks from railway engines would not do any damage there. That is entirely a fallacy. I was in the Highlands recently, and the weather there was delightfully dry. I did not see any wet weather until I got back to London. Therefore this has some reference to the Highlands of Scotland, which are largely made up of smallholders, whose interests, I think, should be safeguarded in this House. In the Highlands even the heather gets on fire, and therefore crops are apt to get on fire also. My hon. Friend the Member for Montrose (Mr. Sturrock) is particular in these matters, especially when it gives him away. I suppose he saw a little protection in the Bill that is to follow.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member had better reserve that for his speech on the next Bill.

Dr. MURRAY: As I suggested, the interests of both Bills are so identical that one forgets which Bill one is talking about. With regard to the limit of time given under this Bill, I think it ought to be extended because farmers and smallholders are apt to forget that the time is getting up. As I did not see any hope of the next Bill coming on, I did not see why I should not say a word or two in support of this Bill, which I think is on sound lines.

Mr. JAMESON: It is not necessary for me to deal with the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for the Western Isles (Dr. Murray), because it was a speech upon the next Bill, and not upon this Bill at all. I merely rise to supplement the reasons which were so concisely given by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) and the hon. Member for Montrose (Mr. Sturrock) why this Bill should not be read a Second time, and it is only necessary for me to supplement their reasons because so pathetic were their evident struggles after compression in their arguments. It was evident that they did not want to keep these railway fires burning
to prevent other and more important Measures being considered by the House. I begin by scouting, with all the vehemence I can, the statement that was made that there is any evidence of any division or contradiction in the right hon. Baronet's speech in his capacity as a railway magnate and in his capacity as a farmer and a landowner. There was complete harmony between the two wings of that Coalition, so far as I could see, in the speech of the right hon. Baronet, and the fusion between the two points of view left the impression that the unanimity in the thought of the right hon. Baronet could not be subject to any criticism. The speeches that have been delivered on the other side admitted, I think, of the strongest criticism from the legal point of view. There seemed to be a legal fallacy underlying the whole argument for this Bill. Perhaps the strongest argument put forward for it is that pronounced by the right hon. Gentleman the Minister of Agriculture and repeated by several other hon. Members—the old, old argument that, if injustice was done to a railway company it was, after all, only a small one, an argument that has been discredited ever since the days of Midshipman Easy. Whether an injustice be small or large, none the less it is an injustice, and ought to be voted against by this House of Commons.
The fallacy that seems to underlie the arguments in support of this Bill is a fallacy that, in justice and in law, whenever an injury is done by anything, the owner of that particular thing is responsible to the person damaged. Everybody in this House, especially my right hon. Friend who has now left the House, knows very well the meaning of the maxim, Nemo tenetur ex domino tantum. [HON. MEMBERS: "Construe!"] In other words, in the vernacular, in the vulgar tongue, no one is liable simply because he is the owner of any particular thing. That old maxim, to be found in Justinian's "Digest, "lies at the root of a very important branch of English and Scottish law. Hence the railway company, in application of that maxim, is not liable for the damage which its engines and its sparks do simply because the railway company happens to be the owner of that engine and of those sparks. It is only when the fire and the sparks are brought into the domain of fault, and guilt,
of culpa, that the railway company becomes liable. Ex culpa tantum, and not ex dominio. That argument disposes of the specious fallacy that was addressed to us from the other side, namely, that whatever damage is done by sparks, the I railway company must morally be liable. The railway company has been granted statutory rights for running over a special part of the country, and it is an incident to these rights that this vehicle, the railway engine, which, as everybody knows, has to emit sparks, it is an incident of that right for it to emit sparks, and if a fire is caused, that arises by a mere accident. The argument that some method could be taken to prevent these sparks flying out is not relevant, because if some method could be taken to prevent the sparks from flying, then it is a fault not to use it, and nothing abolishes fault on the part of a railway company. You have only to say that a railway company should have used this and that device, and you can get damages at the present moment to any limit yon like. It is a contingency which can be guarded against by reasonable skill, whereas this abolition of the statutory defence was simply directed against this mere accident of the sparks being allowed to go over the crops setting them on fire. That is what is known in law as an act of God, which is something that reasonable care could not anticipate or guard against, and that is not a fault.

If crops take fire from a railway train it is not fault, but an act of God. I think it was Lord Young, a famous Scottish judge, who laid down that an
act of God was an act which no reasonable man would expect God to do.
If the act could have been foreseen and guarded against by human agency, then it is not an act of God, but if it could not be foreseen, then it must be an accident. Under the present law, it is a mere accident when a spark sets fire to a lot of crops. Accordingly it was a great and handsome concession of the railway companies, ex gratia, really to allow the original Act to pass through; and so, if a man gets his crops burnt, the railway will give him £100; but to make that concession the starting point for new claims against the railway companies is an injustice to which this House should not consent. I have tried to be as brief as possible, and, having advanced what I consider to be incontrovertible arguments to the House, I beg to support the Amendment, "That the Bill be read a Second time this day six months."

Mr. TOWNLEY rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 134; Noes, 27.

Division No. 88.]
AYES.
[3.50 p.m.


Ammon, Charles George
Doyle, N. Grattan
Jodrell, Neville Paul


Ashley, Colonel Wilfrid W.
Edwards, Allen C. (East Ham, S.)
John, William (Rhondda, West)


Bagley, Captain E. Ashton
Edwards, Major J. (Aberavon)
Johnstone, Joseph


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Edwards, Hugh (Glam., Neath)
Jones, Sir Evan (Pembroke)


Balfour, Sir R. (Glasgow, Partick)
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Jones, J. T. (Carmarthen, Lianelly)


Barnes, Rt. Hon. G. (Glas., Gorbals)
Evans, Ernest
Kennedy, Thomas


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Falcon, Captain Michael
Kiley, James Daniel


Barnston, Major Harry
Finney, Samuel
King, Captain Henry Douglas


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Foot, Isaac
Lewis, T. A. (Glam., Pontypridd)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Forrest, Walter
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (H'tingd'n)


Bennett, Sir Thomas Jewell
Galbraith, Samuel
Loseby, Captain C. E.


Birchall, J. Dearman
Ganzoni, Sir John
Lowther, Major C. (Cumberland, N.)


Boscawen, Rt. Hon. Sir A. Griffith-
Gardner, Ernest
Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Gibbs, Colonel George Abraham
Lyle, C. E. Leonard


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Gilbert, James Daniel
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander


Broad, Thomas Tucker
Goff, Sir R. Park
Mackinder, Sir H. J. (Camlachie)


Brown, Major D. C.
Greene, Lt.-Col. Sir W. (Hack'y, N.)
Maclean, Rt. Hn. Sir D. (Midlothian)


Buckley, Lieut.-Cotonel A.
Greig, Colonel Sir James William
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Gretton, Colonel John
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.


Butcher, Sir John George
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Malone, C. L. (Leyton, E.)


Camplon, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Haslam, Lewis
Martin, A. E.


Cape, Thomas
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Widnes)
Molson, Major John Elsdaie


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Lord R. (Hitchin)
Henderson, Lt.-Col. V. L. (Tradeston)
Morris, Richard


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Munro, Rt. Hon. Robert


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Holmes, J. Stanley
Murray, Dr. D. (Inverness & Ross)


Colfox, Major Wig. Phillips
Hopkins, John W. W.
Naylor, Thomas Ellis


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hudson, R. M.
Neal, Arthur


Cope, Major William
Hunter, General Sir A. (Lancaster)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)
Hurd, Percy A.
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)
Jameson, John Gordon
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Scott, A. M. (Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Pearce, Sir William
Sexton, James
Williams, Aneurin (Durham, Consett)


Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
Williams, C. (Tavistock)


Peel, Col. Hon. S. (Uxbridge, Mddx.)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Wilson, Colonel Leslie O. (Reading)


Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Spencer, George A.
Windsor, Viscount


Pinkham, Lieut.-Colonel Charles
Sprot, Colonel Sir Alexander
Wise, Frederick


Pratt, John William
Stewart, Gershom
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Purchase, H. G.
Strauss, Edward Anthony
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Raeburn, Sir William H.
Sturrock, J. Leng
Yeo, Sir Alfred William


Raffan, Peter Wilson
Sugden, W. H.
Young, E. H. (Norwich)


Bees, Sir J. D. (Nottingham, East)
Sutherland, Sir William
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Rees, Capt. J. Tudor- (Barnstaple)
Swan, J. E.
Young, W. (Perth & Kinross, Perth)


Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Taylor, J.



Roberts, Rt. Hon. G. H. (Norwich)
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Boberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)
Thomas-Stanford, Charles
Mr. Townley and Captain Bowyer.


Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Watson, Captain John Bertrand



NOES.


Armstrong, Henry Bruce
Hayward, Evan
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Evelyn (Birm., Aston)
Hills, Major John Waller
Walsh, Stephen (Lancaster, Ince)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Davidson, J. C. C (Hemel Hempstead)
Irving, Dan
Warren, Sir Alfred H.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Lindsay, William Arthur
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Mills, John Edmund
Woolcock, William James U.


Glyn, Major Ralph
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)



Green, Joseph F. (Leicester, W.)
Nicholson, Reginald (Doncaster)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Nield, Sir Herbert
Sir F. Banbury and Mr. James Wilson.


Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel



Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Robertson, John



Bill read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee.

SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT, 1921(REPEAL) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

Mr. ALEXANDER SHAW: I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I am rather surprised at this unexpected opportunity, considering the enormous vitality of the Measure which pre-coded this on the Order Paper. As I perceive that on the 5th May there are on the Order Paper four Measures which might be in a somewhat vanishing position, I propose, if this Bill is not passed by this House to-day before four o'clock, to put it down for that day. I believe the President of the Board of Trade has gone off by train. I am told that he was prepared to speak on this Bill for upwards of an hour, assuming that it was necessary. He never viewed the Bill with much enthusiasm. He found the Safeguarding of Industries Act an abandoned infant on the doorstep of the Board of Trade, and he never displayed any great enthusiasm for it, although I
must say, without hesitation, that in the administration of that Act he has proved himself a scrupulously fair administrator, and has done his best with an absolutely impossible Measure.

Mr. MILLS rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put," but Mr. Speaker withheld his assent, and declined then to put that Question.

Mr. SHAW: I am very much obliged to the hon. Member opposite. I was looking at the Statute Book this morning, and I see that the Safeguarding of Industries Act is Chapter 47 of the Statutes of 1921.

It being Four of the Clock, further Proceeding on the Bill stood adjourned.

Bill to be read a Second time upon Friday, 5th May.

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.

Adjourned at One Minute after Pour o'Clock till Monday next (10th April).